Christians response to gay marriage?

[HeIsHere]

same-sex couples have the same constitutional rights as any other couple

Where is that in the constitution?

 

[SomeDisciple]

Where is that in the constitution?

It's not; just like the right to a civil "marriage" is not really in the constitution either. Ironically it was derived from "freedom of religion"; but the decision didn't really protect religion at all- it really sets out to control what is essentially a religious institution.

 

[HeIsHere]

They let it happen because America is a constitutional republic and not a theocracy.
Supreme Court decided that same-sex couples have the same constitutional rights as any other couple
If you act according to biblical law, you're going to be a criminal in any state in america. That's why we don't Stone people for blasphemy or burn witches in the 21st century

All governments are set up according to "principles" not sure why you are not grasping the basic formation of a government.

No one here is advocating for a theocracy, that is your straw man.

 

[Dude653]

All governments are set up according to "principles" not sure why you are not grasping the basic formation of a government.

No one here is advocating for a theocracy, that is your straw man.

Yes you are because you're trying to use biblical principles to stop someone from performing a legal marriage. That's the definition of theocracy

 

[HeIsHere]

It's not; just like the right to a civil "marriage" is not really in the constitution either. Ironically it was derived from "freedom of religion"; but the decision didn't really protect religion at all- it really sets out to control what is essentially a religious institution.

Agree, I have read the decision by the Supreme Court, not sure how a Christian can argue in support of it when the decision is so

obviously the product of activist judges with an agenda to fulfill, much like Roe Vs. Wade.

 

[Dude653]

It's not; just like the right to a civil "marriage" is not really in the constitution either. Ironically it was derived from "freedom of religion"; but the decision didn't really protect religion at all- it really sets out to control what is essentially a religious institution.

Marriage isn't mentioned at all in the Constitution but I bet you would be singing a different tune if they tried to say you can't get married at all.
I would say it falls under the right to the pursuit of happiness.
Also supreme Court decides what is or isn't constitutional

 

[HeIsHere]

Yes you are because you're trying to use biblical principles to stop someone from performing a legal marriage. That's the definition of theocracy

No it is the other way around, secularism/post modernism inflicting its nihilism on the rest of society.

 

[HeIsHere]

Marriage isn't mentioned at all in the Constitution but I bet you would be singing a different tune if they tried to say you can't get married at all.
I would say it falls under the right to the pursuit of happiness.
Also supreme Court decides what is or isn't constitutional

Judges can be wrong, especially when they are ruling and infusing their bias and presuppositions into the ruling.

Like a the new judge who cannot define what a woman is.

 

[SomeDisciple]

Marriage isn't mentioned at all in the Constitution but I bet you would be singing a different tune if they tried to say you can't get married at all.

Which is why I said, the decision should have been that the state has to stay out of marriage.

I would say it falls under the right to the pursuit of happiness.

No, civil marriage does not fall under anything. You do not need the government to approve of your marriage to be happy.

Also supreme Court decides what is or isn't constitutional

Good for them, that doesn't mean their decisions can't be based on false logic and falsehood in general. The supreme court can say a lot of things are constitutional, they might get away with twisting what the constitution actually says; but that doesn't mean that it's a good decision; and their decisions are not permanent.

 

[SomeDisciple]

And really- if you or anybody cares about gay people- Why should "married" gay people receive benefits that single gays don't? The reality is, this isn't about protecting gay people at all.

 

[Dude653]

No it is the other way around, secularism/post modernism inflicting its nihilism on the rest of society.

Disagree. Secular law protects everyone's rights because one religion doesn't get special treatment over another

 

[Scarecrow]

Marriage doesn't need protection. Why do you think marriage needs protection?

"protecting" marriage is a conservative thing
they were the ones pushing such things as the marriage protection act and the like. So what were they protecting marriage from?

 

[Scarecrow]

Marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman by scripture. If you are not a Christian you are free to believe otherwise.

In the bible marriage is defined in 8 separate ways only one of which involves one man and one woman choosing to be together.

Which is completely separate from my question to you about your claim that Christians are being vilified...Again are the people vilifying Christians comparing their relationships to bestiality as is being done in this thread?

 

[Scarecrow]

False equivalency.

you asked for "actual legal and logical arguments in support of non traditional marriage" and Loving v Virginia is a good place to start.

 

[Dude653]

If your religion says you can't do something then fine don't do it I have no problem with that
But if you say your religion says I can't do something then we have a problem
You don't see anywhere in the Bible where it says to force your religion on other people through legislation or otherwise
Also approximately 70% of Americans have no problem with same-sex marriage so you're into minority here

 

[SomeDisciple]

"protecting" marriage is a conservative thing
they were the ones pushing such things as the marriage protection act and the like. So what were they protecting marriage from?

They weren't really protecting marriage at all. In fact, they did the opposite.

 

[Scarecrow]

There are more articles with researchers claiming homosexual behavior happened after sexual abuse than it being the cause for.

well cite them.

This leads me to believe you are within this category and why you choose the minority that supports your idealism.

I never thought of actually looking at the claims of actual research to be idealistic, just honest.

And if it's not in relationship to you it's about someone close to you.

But you truly need this opinion to validate your position which alerts me to why.

and what does your continued insistence on repeating claims that can't be backed up say about you?

 

[SomeDisciple]

f your religion says you can't do something then fine don't do it I have no problem with that
But if you say your religion says I can't do something then we have a problem

Bogus logic. Plenty of laws prevent people from "doing something"... and honestly, gay-marriage is more about receiving benefits than actually "doing something".

You don't see anywhere in the Bible where it says to force your religion on other people through legislation or otherwise

actually the bible says the point of the government is to restrain wickedness. I don't want to force Christianity on people, but I don't want it to sanction sin, either, which is what it is now doing.

Also approximately 70% of Americans have no problem with same-sex marriage so you're into minority here

Besides the fact that that likely a propaganda number, even if I was in the minority, it wouldn't make me wrong.

 

[SomeDisciple]

At the end of the day, Gay-marriage is about forcing cultural acceptance of homosexuality, and ultimately it's a tool of Satan to use coercion against the church. It's not a middle-ground at all whatsoever. It is EVIL on OFFENSE.

 

[Scarecrow]

It does, because if the SCOTUS had decided that government should stay out of marriage, like it stays out of religion- and if we didn't give married people special privileges then Gay people would not have an incentive to persue "marriage" in the first place. It should have never even come to this.

Do you think that the only reason opposite gender couples get married is the "special privileges" afforded to married couples?