Supreme Court: Marriage

[genuineoriginal]

can you tell the difference in the judges now?

Yes, the Republicans gave us abortion, the Democrats gave us homosexual marriage.

The answer is simple: Stop voting for Republicans and Democrats.

 

[serpentdove]

EXACTLY. Liberals in these conversations always avoid the word lust. They simply roll it into 'Love' which is a disservice to the actual meaning and the rest of us that are also restricted to using the English language.

If one is willing to commit adultery/fornication ([Ex 20:14] heterosexual [Lev. 20:10–12] or homosexual [Lev. 20:13]), he is also willing to manipulate words (2 Cor. 4:2, 2 Pet. 3:16). The Left (Eccl 10:2, Jn 10:10) :Commie: is better at language if one prefers to live in delusionland (Ps 10:1–11, Lk 12:17–19, Lk 13:23–30, 2 Thess. 2:1–12, 2 Pet. 3:5, 16, 17). :dizzy:

 

[GFR7]

Saying that same sex marriage is a "threat " to "traditional marriage " and will "destroy" the family is as ridiculous as saying that granting voting rights to women and blacks long ago was a "threat" to the voting rights of white males .
There is not one shred of evidence that being raised by gay parents is in any way harmful to children .

You haven't done your research. Much, much social harm will arise from this ruling. It is ignorant to think differently.

 

[GFR7]

And they will still have to go to third party reproduction to have kids----sadly, they will insist government and taxpayers pick up the tab for it all.

 

[Rusha]

You haven't done your research. Much, much social harm will arise from this ruling.

How will *you* be harmed?

It is ignorant to think differently.

Paranoia.

 

[GFR7]

How will *you* be harmed?



Paranoia.

Nope. Truth.

 

[Rusha]

Nope. Truth.

Yes. Truth. This is paranoia. On your part. Obsessing over the private lives of others IS just ... bizarre and unhealthy.

 

[serpentdove]

"I was talking about one side of the argument limiting the vocabulary they are using (often times purposefully by the intellectual elite of one group, so their less bright members have simple slogans to chant)."

Spoon-feeding the wicked (Jer 5:31, 2 Ti 4:3). “One with God is a majority” ~ Martin Luther

"In this case liberals, the group I was addressing, like to boil arguments down to selfish humanism."

If it feels good do it. :zman: 2 Tim. 3:2-4, Phil 2:21

"...I certainly believe gay people can love each other."

:vomit: Sodomites ([Ex 20:14] heterosexual [Lev. 20:10–12] or homosexual [Lev. 20:13]) do not love one another. :dizzy: People do not love others when they sin against themselves and another (1 Co 6:18). :reals: Love wants what is best for his neighbor (Mt 22:39, Judg 21:25, Jn 10:10). :straight:

"...'[R]ights' cases that the current struggle for 'gay rights' liken themselves to."

Men have the right :freak: to obey (Ac 5:29). :straight: Obey God and live. :burnlib: Don't and you won't (Re 20:14). opcorn:
"You can build on him (1 Cor. 10:4) or stumble on him (1 Pet. 2:8). He'll be a stepping stone (Ps 18:2) or stumbling stone (1 Cor 1:23, Luke 20:18)." ~ Adrian Rogers

 

[GFR7]

Yes. Truth. This is paranoia. On your part. Obsessing over the private lives of others IS just ... bizarre and unhealthy.

Erm, it's their PUBLIC lives and actions which I find worrisome for the future......... not my own, but of children and youth of today.

 

[serpentdove]

And sticking with the topic of how this affects our speaking English... What do members here think about using another word now for holy marriage? Stick with the term "matrimony" perhaps? The pairing "holy matrimony" always comes to mind for me.

Our word is marriage (Gen. 2:18–24). :straight: Their word is rebellion (Heb 13:4). :reals: God does not leave covenant relationships (Mt 19:6, Rom. 7:2, 3). A marriage is worthy of his presence (John 2:1–11). A sham is not. God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 13:13, 19:1–28).

He did not

parTy harTy :freak: with them.

 

[chrysostom]

Erm, it's their PUBLIC lives and actions which I find worrisome for the future......... not my own, but of children and youth of today.

we will have to look for other ways to protect the children

marriage is now being used to protect two guys living together

 

[Rusha]

Erm, it's their PUBLIC lives and actions which I find worrisome for the future

How so? Being gay does not mean they are exempt from the same laws that apply to the rest of us.

Why is it that your concern for the public lives of married couples has never extended to heterosexuals couples who are on display over adultery, domestic/child abuse, drugs/alcohol, arrests, etc?

 

[Rusha]

we will have to look for other ways to protect the children

marriage is now being used to protect two guys living together

Protecting children was never the primary function or reason for marriage.

IF it were, child bearing would be a mandatory requirement for marriage.

 

[GFR7]

we will have to look for other ways to protect the children

marriage is now being used to protect two guys living together

I know, but you and I both know this is not its proper usage, and that marriage is still the best way to protect children, and civilization itself.

 

[GFR7]

Protecting children was never the primary function or reason for marriage.

IF it were, child bearing would be a mandatory requirement for marriage.

Ancestry, descendants, and the natural family were always the foundation of marriage, and many infertile couples are bitterly angry that gays capitalized on their misfortune to redefine marriage.

 

[GFR7]

How so? Being gay does not mean they are exempt from the same laws that apply to the rest of us.

Why is it that your concern for the public lives of married couples has never extended to heterosexuals couples who are on display over adultery, domestic/child abuse, drugs/alcohol, arrests, etc?

Oh, but it has - and I blame radical feminism for its attack on paternity and natural family. For its no-fault divorce and day care centers.

 

[chrysostom]

Oh, but it has - and I blame radical feminism for its attack on paternity and natural family. For its no-fault divorce and day care centers.

I also blame the feminists
but
what about the other women who know better
why do they remain silent?

 

[Rusha]

I blame radical feminism

Of course you do ... because laying blame and lazy generalizations is much easier than admitting that men are not the blameless little angels you make them out to be.

 

[Rusha]

I also blame the feminists
but
what about the other women who know better
why do they remain silent?

No one expects you to hold men to the same standards that you have for women.

 

[serpentdove]

"Protecting children was never the primary function or reason for marriage."

Marriage is honorable with or without children (Heb 13:4). God wants godly offspring (Ge 1:28, Mal. 2:14, 15). Marriage was given not just to the Christian but to the world (Gen. 2:18–24).

"If it were, child bearing would be a mandatory requirement for marriage."

Right. Man and wife make a family (Gen. 2:18–24). :straight: Children are a blessing (Ps 127:3) but not necessary.