I remember when an unwed couple couldn't rent an apartment together. In twenty years polygamy will be legalized to cover the bisexuals who want a husband and a wife.
I bring this up because in God's eyes heterosexual cohabitation out of marriage is a sin, just like homosexualality, coveting, stealing, etc. Our laws were based on biblical views but that is now changing. Making something legal doesn't make it not a sin though.
lot'sa angst, and homophobia going on... I bet there is also a lot of racial undertones still brewing also...
maybe folks ought to accept good people by face value, and quit putting badges on others, making them a hated person
What we can learn from this is that it has been declared from on high the proper and accepted line of thought has now been given to the unwashed masses and any deviating from this line of thought are branded racist, bigot, homophobe climate change deniers and we only burn opposition witches.
who's god? and by that I ask you your god, or someone else's god?
there is a specific declination of a division of church and state, and that, by the constitution shall never be crossed...
legal precedence in our United States has no obligation to the word spoken by anyone's specific "god".
this is the basis of our society.
when you lay your "god's" word out, and expect everyone to tow down to it because it is your god... you are doing exactly what led to the creation and the fighting that was what was being done prior to the creation of what "our government" was founded to abolish... it was freedom, and freedom from any and all persecution.
wake up.
and when you want to toss out the religion card, against gay and lesbian relations...
well, if it ain't in the big ten, it aint a problem...
oh, and all those christian ideals, were actually jewish ideals, and vice versa...
man, this gets to ba a real conundrum doesn't it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments
lot'sa angst, and homophobia going on... I bet there is also a lot of racial undertones still brewing also...
maybe folks ought to accept good people by face value, and quit putting badges on others, making them a hated person...
you never know who's blood might save your life, when you are unconscious, and dying.. just saying.
or, we could go back to simply burning witches....
http://youtu.be/k3jt5ibfRzw
-----------------------------------------My whole post was meant to be sarcastic. 'On high' ,if you need it explained, is your 'betters' handing down opinions as law and deciding which line of thinking is the Official Government Approved line.
Statements like this are simply discriminatory and often violate the very premise(s) being defended by either side.
This debate has been raging for a while now in our culture and in this thread. Aside from my opinions on this specific subject at hand, I am disturbed by statements like these from both sides of the issue. Its classic 'ad hominem'.
'Homophobia' is a badge. 'On high' is sarcastic. Both are condescending and a form of a shout down meant to minimize the other person rather than defend / debate the view.
People have a right to their own beliefs. Debate should be civil and without name calling to minimize the other side. Just because someone doesn't agree with a view doesn't mean they are inferior or that their views are potentially punishable 'hate speech'.
If someone questions it or wants to debate it logically, there should not be a minimizing or a shout down. Its bullying and is verbal witch burning, just one from the other side.
This method carried to its natural conclusion means those with the largest pitchfork and torch mob will win, regardless of what natural / moral / legal code is at hand or may be violated.
This is happening on both sides of just about ANY subject within our culture and is DANGEROUS. We ALL have the right to our beliefs and freedom of expression (at least so far).
I have no problem with people stating their beliefs and opinions. I'm always curious to know the thought processes and basis they went through to arrive there. If I disagree with it, its OK. I don't hate you and I'm not a villain. Its HAS to be OK for someone to disagree with or question your line of thought - whatever it may be.
Rue the day that we are forced / punished / fined to avoid speaking against or questioning the Fuhrer of any line of thought.
My whole post was meant to be sarcastic. 'On high' ,if you need it explained, is your 'betters' handing down opinions as law and deciding which line of thinking is the Official Government Approved line.
Rue the day that we are forced / punished / fined to avoid speaking against or questioning the Fuhrer of any line of thought.
To the ones who are opposed to this, based purely on Biblical rules, how do you feel about the following?You are absolutely right. I have a government problem and using personal freedom as a pawn in a chess game of population control as this marriage issue has been used is another brick in the wall. There are those who realize and use turmoil and chaos as a means to power. Unfortunately I don't think this is over.
25 things the Bible forbids (but we still do)
To those offering words of support, thank you so very kindly for it. To those against this, if my relationship with another human being makes you uncomfortable, I'm not the problem, you are.
To the ones who are opposed to this, based purely on Biblical rules, how do you feel about the following?
25 things the Bible forbids (but we still do)
To those offering words of support, thank you so very kindly for it. To those against this, if my relationship with another human being makes you uncomfortable, I'm not the problem, you are.
To the ones who are opposed to this, based purely on Biblical rules, how do you feel about the following?
25 things the Bible forbids (but we still do)
To those offering words of support, thank you so very kindly for it. To those against this, if my relationship with another human being makes you uncomfortable, I'm not the problem, you are.
I'm truly happy for you. You certainly never needed my approval and you shouldn't need the governments approval either.
You are absolutely correct when you say some are going to be uncomfortable and that is their problem. But as long as these uncomfortable people do not force their problem upon you, they have every right to be uncomfortable. The unintended consequence of this SCOTUS decision (or maybe it is intended) is that many will use this as an excuse to force others to go against their beliefs.
<snip>
The question leads to broader questions lying at the heart of all this.
What is moral, and who defines it?
Is there an absolute moral code or not?
Does one's answers to those questions hold true universally or selectively?
I agree with the opinion that this will convolute and become far-fetched as this carries out to its natural conclusion and unintended consequences unfold.
Walk a mile in another man's shoes before you judge him. Life as a gay person growing up in this country was not easy. Some got beaten for it (myself included.) Some were murdered. Some had their futures destroyed. Others took their own lives because they just couldn't stand how they were being treated.
It's a sad and sorry state of affairs when a government has to step in to tell an entire country to treat others with respect and equality, but if that's what's needed (see also: slavery, segregation, and women's suffrage) then so be it. Not one GLBTQ person who fought for this wanted anything more than to be treated with the same respect and decency that our straight counterparts already enjoyed.
This decision has zero effect on the vast majority of this country's population. For those of us that it benefits, I think you'll see in the coming years that the positive effects will massively outweigh the negatives. Ascribing anything else to this is pure hubris.
I never judged you and I meant it when I said I was truly happy for you.