SCOTUS Gay Marriage Thread

[Brian Swartz]

BillyNYC, thank you for your extremely reasonable comments.

Originally Posted by rowech

also think the idea that more people are going to become gay that you are subtly hinting towards

This isn't my point at all. It's not that more people are going to become gay, it's that when we as a nation normalize it we are completely changing what marriage is, in my opinion, intended and created to be. The proper view of heterosexual marriage can't survive it. Two becoming one and a legal document are not the same thing .

I'll also say if we're going to start picking and choosing things that are affecting humanity, there are a lot of things the Bible mentions that I would start with before homosexuality.

I think what I said regarding this issue being the focus of the culture is on point here.

As regards the NT, you are certainly right in many ways. I don't go around telling the people I know who aren't believers how they should live their lives in general. I'm not interested in criminalizing things that the Bible says are sins, and I don't want a theocracy. What I see as the difference though is that this is a case where every American is part of the government. That's our system. There's a difference between what I might say to a colleague at work in a casual conversation about our lives(that would more be on the plane of, if I thought it was an appropriate time, sharing the gospel not why do you do this or that God says that's a sin) and the responsibility of every government to govern responsibly. I think that's totally different from taking God's place and judging. It's a case of saying, am I willing to approve of a social institution which I believe will cause great damage for generations, or is it more loving and responsible to say no to that?

I'm also curious what historical events you refer to, and what you think is the right approach to public policy if the best interests of humanity isn't that approach.

[Brian Swartz]

Subby -- I've read it before but it's a great reminder. I hope I will live in a way that is worthy of that. Thanks.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

BillyNYC, thank you for your extremely reasonable comments.



This isn't my point at all. It's not that more people are going to become gay, it's that when we as a nation normalize it we are completely changing what marriage is, in my opinion, intended and created to be. The proper view of heterosexual marriage can't survive it. Two becoming one and a legal document are not the same thing .



I think what I said regarding this issue being the focus of the culture is on point here.

As regards the NT, you are certainly right in many ways. I don't go around telling the people I know who aren't believers how they should live their lives in general. I'm not interested in criminalizing things that the Bible says are sins, and I don't want a theocracy. What I see as the difference though is that this is a case where every American is part of the government. That's our system. There's a difference between what I might say to a colleague at work in a casual conversation about our lives(that would more be on the plane of, if I thought it was an appropriate time, sharing the gospel not why do you do this or that God says that's a sin) and the responsibility of every government to govern responsibly. I think that's totally different from taking God's place and judging. It's a case of saying, am I willing to approve of a social institution which I believe will cause great damage for generations, or is it more loving and responsible to say no to that?

I'm also curious what historical events you refer to, and what you think is the right approach to public policy if the best interests of humanity isn't that approach.

Salem Witch Trials was the first one in my mind.

[Solecismic]

How do you feel about an infertile man and a woman marrying? Or a married couple who uses birth control?

Should a gay couple have the legal right to adopt a child?

I'm also curious as to why this particular court case has any significance - it's just about whether the government cares about the gender of the members of a legal household, for the purposes of assigning taxes and property rights.

Really, I'd agree with you if the Court said a church had to perform a marriage ceremony for anyone who asked. Though I still applaud those churches who treat gay marriage as equivalent to any marriage.

I honestly think you, as a religious person, will fare better with a government that sets up a strict separation of church and state.

But I disagree with the notion that something should become law just because the majority approves. I get tired of politicians claiming there's some "mandate" for anything when one party wins, 50-47. When we govern with the idea of protecting everyone equally, we are stronger as a nation.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Subby -- I've read it before but it's a great reminder. I hope I will live in a way that is worthy of that. Thanks.

Same here. I re-read it every few months as a reminder.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

How do you feel about an infertile man and a woman marrying? Or a married couple who uses birth control?

Nothing wrong with the first. On the second, it depends on what kind(I'm against abortifacients).

I believe a gay couple/single parent should be able to adopt. A child is better off with loving parents than in an orphanage. I think they're better off still with a mother and father, but perfect is the enemy of good and so on.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

it's just about whether the government cares about the gender of the members of a legal household, for the purposes of assigning taxes and property rights.

I think it's about more than that. You may have missed it, but that question's come up a couple times in this thread. Re: separation of church and state, I'm assuming you mean this in the modern American sense. In that sense, it's a complete impossibility. Neutrality is impossible. It's like a 20-sided(or however many) die: no matter how many times you roll it, one side will come up each time. If God/religion is not allowed in the public sphere, well that's not neutrality or separation, it's an over anti-religious stance and a de facto endorsement of secularism. The only question is what philosophy wins.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I disagree with the notion that something should become law just because the majority approves.

So do I. I don't favor a pure majority. I'm glad some things are supposed to at least require constitutional amendment etc. and have a higher standard to change. The point I was trying to get at and didn't really succeed completely it appears is that the source of a law shouldn't matter. Religious, secular, some guy having a bong-induced vision on a mountaintop, I don't care. If it gets the required support, it shouldn't matter where the idea came from.

[molson]

Kinda proud that my Lutheran ELCA church (my father and several of my friends are pastors) has allowed individual congregations to perform gay marriages since it was made first legal in MA, and has permitted gay pastors to be ordained since 2010. (And in reality, there were many gay pastors in decades before that that everyone was informally cool with).

I don't give credit to Obama for all this, I give credit to gay people who have come out over the years, particularly in times where it was more difficult to do so. That's what changed society. Not every gay person found acceptance, but for every 100 gay people who came out, there were dozens of uncles, friends, parents, etc, who eventually came around to realize that homosexuality really wasn't that scary. I saw it in my own family. Nobody around me really remembers why they opposed gay marriage. It took the courage of gay people to be themselves in various communities to normalize all this.

My pastor friend in Gardner, MA put this up yesterday. He and I would certainly disagree with any argument that we're not "real Christians"

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by rowech

Salem Witch Trials was the first one in my mind.

Ok I think I understand. If I do, your objection is that a group of people could be considered a threat and wiped out etc. due to the greater good argument. I guess my question remains then: what is the alternative? I mean I think the 'how does it affect me' is worse and doesn't solve this dilemma. Having laws to protect individuals certainly helps but it doesn't solve it either because somebody has to decide what laws those will be, and on what basis?

It's sort of like the old phrase that essentially democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others. Maybe there's a solution that hasn't ever occurred to me. If so, I'm open to reconsidering my approach to citizenship, it's changed multiple times in the past decade already.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

BillyNYC, thank you for your extremely reasonable comments.



This isn't my point at all. It's not that more people are going to become gay, it's that when we as a nation normalize it we are completely changing what marriage is, in my opinion, intended and created to be. The proper view of heterosexual marriage can't survive it. Two becoming one and a legal document are not the same thing .



I think what I said regarding this issue being the focus of the culture is on point here.

As regards the NT, you are certainly right in many ways. I don't go around telling the people I know who aren't believers how they should live their lives in general. I'm not interested in criminalizing things that the Bible says are sins, and I don't want a theocracy. What I see as the difference though is that this is a case where every American is part of the government. That's our system. There's a difference between what I might say to a colleague at work in a casual conversation about our lives(that would more be on the plane of, if I thought it was an appropriate time, sharing the gospel not why do you do this or that God says that's a sin) and the responsibility of every government to govern responsibly. I think that's totally different from taking God's place and judging. It's a case of saying, am I willing to approve of a social institution which I believe will cause great damage for generations, or is it more loving and responsible to say no to that?

Well there it is. I think our society is more moral and more "Christian" than any other society, ever. The rights of women and minorities, the education of the poor and preservation of our environment are all new concepts that have created a city on a hill that cannot be hidden.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

It's not that more people are going to become gay, it's that when we as a nation normalize it we are completely changing what marriage is, in my opinion, intended and created to be.

Marriage wasn't created by Christians. It's intentions have changed on a regular basis from generation to generation. In fact, marrying for love is a relatively new concept that is still not practiced in a large segment of the world. To argue that there is a definition of what marriage is ignores thousands of years of hsitory and about half the modern globe.

Ancient cultures created it so that it would bind a woman to a man and so that her children would be an heir to his property. The women were treated like property and could be returned in some cultures if they failed to create a child. It was a business contract.

In China you could marry off your dead relatives so they wouldn't be bored in the afterlife. For some (Egypt, Europe for instance) it was about keeping bloodlines pure and thus you married cousins or even siblings. Many cultures in the past and even some today have the parents arrange the marriage so that they don't marry outside their caste. In fact, being in love was considered a negative in many of these cultures until recently.

So the idea that this "changes" marriage doesn't exist. Marriage has changed dramatically over centuries. Heck, 50 years ago an interracial marriage was illegal in a chunk of this country.

Now I understand if you don't personally like it. But to argue that the current marriage laws are normal and what was intended is just not historically accurate.

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

The proper view of heterosexual marriage can't survive it. Two becoming one and a legal document are not the same thing .

I can't speak to your situation but I think most people will be able to "survive" their marriage even if same-sex marriage is legal. It's been legal in some states for awhile now and heterosexual couples have not abandoned it.

[bhlloy]

As much as I disagree with Brian I have to say I'm really impressed with the civility and the good discussion on his part around this topic, which is obviously very close to his heart.

I've said it before, I find it almost impossible to accept the church and "biblical" opinion on this one given that growing up I was a member of a church that had absolutely no problem welcoming and condoning adulterers and divorcees but would have chased an openly gay person out into the street with pitchforks. It's an impression I still get of churches today, and I may be wildly wrong but I would hazard a guess it would be the case in a lot of the churches that are railing against this ruling right now.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by corbes

[Edward64]

As much as I disagree with Brian I have to say I'm really impressed with the civility and the good discussion on his part around this topic, which is obviously very close to his heart.

Yup, appreciate the civility.

I do share Brian's concerns about how these societal changes may impact humanity. However, in the case of gay marriage, I'm okay with it.

I've interacted with gay people, have a couple gay friends that I know of, and there are plenty in-your-face gay people I don't want to associate with (just like in any other group) -- but for the most part, I find them like regular folks and I'm good with them getting married, having the same rights etc.

With that said, my caveat is that religious institutions opposed to them are not forced to perform gay marriages. From what I've been reading, there are still a lot of open questions as to what the ruling means for them (e.g. tax status).

I've said it before, I find it almost impossible to accept the church and "biblical" opinion on this one given that growing up I was a member of a church that had absolutely no problem welcoming and condoning adulterers and divorcees but would have chased an openly gay person out into the street with pitchforks. It's an impression I still get of churches today, and I may be wildly wrong but I would hazard a guess it would be the case in a lot of the churches that are railing against this ruling right now.

A little strong about chasing gay person out with a pitchfork but agree -- not all sins in the Bible are treated equally in religious organizations.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Marriage wasn't created by Christians. It's intentions have changed on a regular basis from generation to generation. In fact, marrying for love is a relatively new concept that is still not practiced in a large segment of the world. To argue that there is a definition of what marriage is ignores thousands of years of hsitory and about half the modern globe.
:
:
So the idea that this "changes" marriage doesn't exist. Marriage has changed dramatically over centuries. Heck, 50 years ago an interracial marriage was illegal in a chunk of this country.

Now I understand if you don't personally like it. But to argue that the current marriage laws are normal and what was intended is just not historically accurate.

Good point that reasons for marriage is varied and definition of marriage changes.

However, using the NT as the source, Christianity does say one man and one wife (but I do miss the polygamy days).

Brian - as I follow your arguments, you have referred to the Bible. I assume the Bible is NT and not really the OT?

[rowech]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Ok I think I understand. If I do, your objection is that a group of people could be considered a threat and wiped out etc. due to the greater good argument. I guess my question remains then: what is the alternative? I mean I think the 'how does it affect me' is worse and doesn't solve this dilemma. Having laws to protect individuals certainly helps but it doesn't solve it either because somebody has to decide what laws those will be, and on what basis?

It's sort of like the old phrase that essentially democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others. Maybe there's a solution that hasn't ever occurred to me. If so, I'm open to reconsidering my approach to citizenship, it's changed multiple times in the past decade already.

For me, it's just about whether it affects me directly inside my house or at my place of work. Outside of those places, when I go out into public, my criteria is simply does it threaten my personal safety or my personal belongings. If not, then oh well.

[Dutch]

Faith is not strengthened or weakened by government. Governments role is to stay as far away from my personal convictions as possible. Imagine being a Christian in the Middle East. The government policies there can not rattle your core beliefs. So I support gay marriage, not as a Christian, but as a citizen of a nation that has been designed, at least theoretically, to be all-inclusive.

Protestant is the split from Catholicism (I think that's right...not really sure). Its okay to deviate. God made us diverse, our mission has never been to fight for a lack of diversity.

That being said, to believe in God is to know Satan exists. We can fight evil...but I just don't see a child of God with no choice in the matter...who harms no one...as evil. It simply doesn't pass my logic tests...which is something else God gave us. Until He shows up and tells me I'm an idiot, I will have Faith that my thoughts are fair and good...no man's interpretation of the Bible can overrule my interpretation. I leave that to judgement day.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Protestant is the split from Catholicism (I think that's right...not really sure). Its okay to deviate. God made us diverse, our mission has never been to fight for a lack of diversity.

The King James is missing some books from the Catholic bible.

That being said, to believe in God is to know Satan exists. We can fight evil...but I just don't see a child of God with no choice in the matter...who harms no one...as evil. It simply doesn't pass my logic tests...which is something else God gave us. Until He shows up and tells me I'm an idiot, I will have Faith that my thoughts are fair and good...no man's interpretation of the Bible can overrule my interpretation. I leave that to judgement day.

Nature vs Nuture has been my argument also. Its pretty evident to me that gay people are born that way. Yes, there are exceptions where its probably more of a choice but there is a "gay gene (or whatever)" out there.

However, you can take this nature vs nurture argument to other areas/behaviors that I do not agree with.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Brian - as I follow your arguments, you have referred to the Bible. I assume the Bible is NT and not really the OT?

It's both. There are many examples of polygamy in the OT, which seems by implication to be the point of the question, but none that are approved and Genesis lays out the plan pretty clearly .

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

I was a member of a church that had absolutely no problem welcoming and condoning adulterers and divorcees but would have chased an openly gay person out into the street with pitchforks. It's an impression I still get of churches today, and I may be wildly wrong but I would hazard a guess it would be the case in a lot of the churches that are railing against this ruling right now.

I understand this very much, and I'm sorry that it has been your experience. Perhaps sharing the story of my church(good/bad/ugly) might shed some light here.

It was started a little over 50 years ago, and a couple decades in their was a public, ugly, unjustified split. It took another several years but eventually there was, for lack of a better word, a forgiveness service where both sides apologized. Just an ugly chapter, and indefensible.

The church has from the beginning though, which is before I was even born, stood for the concept that the Bible is the authority and it must be taught completely. Generally speaking it has also disciplined it's own, particularly in the areas of divorce and adultery. As it happened, both of those occurred in my own family and eventually resulted in both of my parents being removed from leadership positions.

At the same time, I think we are sadly a very materialistic church. We are much better about teaching than doing. I wish we followed more the model of Francis Chan's church in California, which gives away more than half it's income, increasing the amount each year at least up till that time, and a few years ago cancelled and then re-imagined a much smaller version believing they simply could not justify spending millions of dollars on an expansion given the needs of others.

To a person almost they would definitely disagree with same-sex marriage but it did not come up this morning. The message was about Abraham and faith as scheduled, and there wasn't even a passing comment from anyone during the service though in the small-group stuff the hour before it may well have been a topic of conversation. I had a gay coworker attend there with me a few years ago, he enjoyed it and nobody said a negative thing to him much less chased him with anything . He knew going in what our doctrine was on the issue, it wasn't any kind of bait-and-switch.

I think our church is probably better than many but certainly some follow God more closely than we do. The main thing I would suggest here is that the church is always going to have the same flaws as everyone else: we have hypocrites, gossips, arrogant people, etc. We hope to and should put those things aside over time, but in any community of flawed people there is going to be ugliness. It's always been that way, and it always will be that way. God is not affected by that though. Even when a particular church or Christian betrays our trust or loses our respect, it doesn't mean that was God's way.

[tarcone]

A couple things:

1) it's not for us to judge each other or how we choose to live in the larger sense. Sure we have trials for criminals and such, but God will sort it out in His time. So I have no problem with people doing what they will.

2) I do have an issue with the Supreme Court making laws. That is not their purpose. They shouldn't be able to overturn what the people of democratic states have chosen to allow or not. That's not how democracy works. The people choose, not 9 appointed judges.

I have no issue with people being in a legal contract that allows them health care or inheritance. I have issues with how it has been recognized.

Read Romans in the NT. esp. The 2nd chapter. Good stuff.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by tarcone

I have no issue with people being in a legal contract that allows them health care or inheritance. I have issues with how it has been recognized.

Because marriage is a religious creation?

[JAG]

Originally Posted by tarcone

2) I do have an issue with the Supreme Court making laws.

The Supreme Court did not make a law, they interpreted a law (which is their function) as unconstitutional.

[tarcone]

Marriage IS a religious creation. But who am I to tell you or anyone else whom they can marry. In the end, it will all be sorted out.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by JAG

The Supreme Court did not make a law, they interpreted a law (which is their function) as unconstitutional.

They overrode many states constitutional amendments. Thus, they made it the law of the land. Even though many states have outlawed it. Therefore, the Suprme Court made a law.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by tarcone

They overrode many states constitutional amendments. Thus, they made it the law of the land. Even though many states have outlawed it. Therefore, the Suprme Court made a law.

No.

You're arguing for a country where a law is de facto constitutional because it was passed by a majority. That isn't our system.

[murrayyyyy]

Originally Posted by tarcone

I do have an issue with the Supreme Court making laws. That is not their purpose. They shouldn't be able to overturn what the people of democratic states have chosen to allow or not. That's not how democracy works. The people choose, not 9 appointed judges.

Excluding that whole blacks are slaves, women can't vote, white only schools, womens work rights with regards to kids, equal pay for women, maternity benefits, allowing women on juries, adulthood starting at 21 (instead of 18 for women because they needed less education).

Let's remember that states were against those things being allowed also.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

No.

You're arguing for a country where a law is de facto constitutional because it was passed by a majority. That isn't our system.

So, if a state has presented a piece of legislation to the people in the form of a constitutional amendment, it isn't the law of that state?

This is the new norm in Missouri. When the state won't pass a law, groups get enough signatures to put in a election as an constitutional amendment. Voted on by the people. But this isn't how it works?
What is our system?

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Marriage IS a religious creation. But who am I to tell you or anyone else whom they can marry. In the end, it will all be sorted out.

Humans are primarily monogamous. Crediting religion for marriage is similar to crediting religion for laws against murder.

We all die. Someone might have faith that there's another level of life after death.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by tarcone

So, if a state has presented a piece of legislation to the people in the form of a constitutional amendment, it isn't the law of that state?

This is the new norm in Missouri. When the state won't pass a law, groups get enough signatures to put in a election as an constitutional amendment. Voted on by the people. But this isn't how it works?
What is our system?

"All . . . will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect and to violate would be oppression. ". Thomas Jefferson, inaugural address

(FYI, this quote is the theme of my 12th grade civics class)

Is there an example of a SCOTUS decision that you agree with, think was good, useful?

Is your preference for democracy over judicial review only now relevant? Now that women and other adult citizens were allowed to vote?

[tarcone]

Not at all only now relevant. This is the hot topic that I chose to comment on.
I don't care who marries who. But I do care about democracy. And it's funny Jefferson said that.
I think the term is the whole sticking point. Marriage. Would we be having this huge fight if the term was civil union?

And God did make the law against murder. While not a religion. So I guess my comment about religion creating marriage was misguided. It wasn't religion.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Marriage IS a religious creation. But who am I to tell you or anyone else whom they can marry. In the end, it will all be sorted out.

No it isn't. Can't change history.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Not at all only now relevant. This is the hot topic that I chose to comment on.
I don't care who marries who. But I do care about democracy. And it's funny Jefferson said that.
I think the term is the whole sticking point. Marriage. Would we be having this huge fight if the term was civil union?

And God did make the law against murder. While not a religion. So I guess my comment about religion creating marriage was misguided. It wasn't religion.

Well, my point was how can you declare all laws democratic decisions when so many were excluded from participating in the democratic process?

Also, your God-murder-law thing is interesting. If a God/gods tells a father he needs to kill his son atop a mountain or burn his daughter at the stake, is it murder?

[tarcone]

This was obedience to God. Trusting that God's plan is best. In this, Abraham was exalting His attributes and praising Him. No, not murder.
I'm not sure about the daughter burning at the stake.

And, again, we will all be judged by God. It's not our place to judge others. And who knows what the judgement will be? Certainly not me.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

It's both. There are many examples of polygamy in the OT, which seems by implication to be the point of the question, but none that are approved and Genesis lays out the plan pretty clearly .

Genesis sure does lay out a plan. Husbands rule over their wives. If the wife can't get pregnant you can dismiss her and bang your maid. And it sure seemed to be a fan of marrying close relatives.

Not seeing a lot of push for the government to endorse that stuff for some reason.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by tarcone

So, if a state has presented a piece of legislation to the people in the form of a constitutional amendment, it isn't the law of that state?

This is the new norm in Missouri. When the state won't pass a law, groups get enough signatures to put in a election as an constitutional amendment. Voted on by the people. But this isn't how it works?
What is our system?

Come on, you know how this works. A state law is primary only when it doesn't conflict with federal law. So a state constitutional amendment is only law if it doesn't conflict with federal law. In this case SCOTUS ruled that laws against gay marriage are in conflict with the 14th amendment and the federal law wins.

[Tekneek]

The Supreme Court never makes laws. That is a story that people unhappy with the result like to spin. Concepts like "Judicial tyranny" and "activist Judges" are sour grapes from people who either do not understand the rule of law or are intentionally firing up their base with misinformation. They interpret the law and, as the highest court in the land (and the only one established in the Constitution), get the final say on what is Constitutional and what is not.

If you spend time reading a lot of SCOTUS decisions, it will open your mind about what they do and why they do it. There are all kinds of disputes they handle, most of which the masses would probably find boring and you never hear about them on the news. Bad law does not suddenly become good just because the majority of people somewhere voted for it.

As far as marriage being a religious thing, that ship sailed a long time ago. The government regulates marriage and it is intertwined in our code of laws and regulations. You can be married without having any religion at all. For all legal purposes, this is not a religious matter and has not been for quite a while. It was inevitable that this ruling would come down. The decision in Loving v Virginia basically sealed the deal. It was only a matter of when, not if.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Rainmaker

If the wife can't get pregnant you can dismiss her and bang your maid. And it sure seemed to be a fan of marrying close relatives.

You're better than this, but in case someone else reads it and isn't up on what all is written:

** The first part was a direct contradiction of what God had instructed. Bad things happened as a result. Nowhere was it said this was what God had told them to do: in fact it was the opposite. Just as in real life, the Bible has real people. Not perfect ones.

** When there's not many people around because, you know, human population is low, it's pretty much marry relatives or don't propagate the species. Again, nowhere is it stated that this is the idea that should prevail for all time as normative human conduct.

Etc.

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I must object partially to your definition of what it means to be a 'true Christian'. God is love, but as He defined it. We certainly ought to, and I intend to, spread that love as much as possible. Among the thing it includes is conflict where necessary, and love cannot be happy for destructive things.

"it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth"(I Corinthians 13:6).

As for me, there were casualties in some relationships yesterday. As a result of my previously posted facebook message, I am no longer on speaking terms with my brother's significant other, and he felt it necessary to publicly label me and all others who share my view as being without humanity or sympathy, pitiful, brainwashed/fear-driven, empty, and joyless. I hope these wounds will heal with time, and that other similar or more severe divides between people caused by this issue will eventually result in both sides being able to see that strongly held differing opinions are not necessarily the result of nefarious or evil motives: they are just that: differing opinions.

I'm sorry to hear about your relationship with your brothers significant other. I hope that people on both sides of this topic can respect each other's opinion even if they don't agree, granted it is a civil conversation.

Jesus taught us many things...look at the adulterer who was to be stoned to death, he stepped in and saved her life. He forgave those who had Him killed. So when people throw the word "truth" around, how do we know what Gods truth really is? The NT is written by men inspired by the Holy Spirit, but not written by God Himself. We're all sinners and please be careful about pulling quotes out because there are numerous instances of contraction and pulling quotes can mean different things when taken out of context.

We can look at what Jesus said and emulate it. Love your neighbors. Pray for them. If you believe they are on the wrong track, pray and ask God to put them on the right track.

My interpretation of my tiny existence on this rock is to do my best to live my life as Christ would, that's what I mean by a true Christian. What I don't understand or know how to handle I put on God's shoulders cause He can handle it in due time.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Humans are primarily monogamous.

TBH, I'm not sure the science is definitive on this. I think there is a fair % of people that are not or have tendency not to be monogamous.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

You're better than this, but in case someone else reads it and isn't up on what all is written:

** The first part was a direct contradiction of what God had instructed. Bad things happened as a result. Nowhere was it said this was what God had told them to do: in fact it was the opposite. Just as in real life, the Bible has real people. Not perfect ones.

** When there's not many people around because, you know, human population is low, it's pretty much marry relatives or don't propagate the species. Again, nowhere is it stated that this is the idea that should prevail for all time as normative human conduct.

Etc.

Didn't God demand that the maid go back after she tried to run away and submit to her master?

There also seems to be enough people around to avoid the constant incest in Genesis. And if population was the concern here, God could have cut back on the killing just a little bit.

Almost forgot that part of that clear plan in Genesis that mentions how you need to impregnate your brother's wife if he dies. That's a major one and death is the punishment for defying it. No real push to get that on the books here in the United States though for some reason.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

It's both. There are many examples of polygamy in the OT, which seems by implication to be the point of the question, but none that are approved and Genesis lays out the plan pretty clearly .

Per some above comments, I think your point is that some of the "bad stuff" may have happened in the OT as a historical record but its not approved by God.

The OT is problematic for me. I always had an issue with the Book of Job and cannot reconcile my belief in a God that encouraged and allowed those things to happen to Job.

[Thomkal]

Well just wanted to say thank you to all of you that commented on my post. I expected FOFC to treat me nicely, but I was blown away by your response. It made this weekend extra special for me-I'd hug each and every one of you if I could. I'm going to respond to some posts here that especially touched me, or made me want to respond, but you should you all consider your posts responded to by me with a lot of love.

(Hey mods, it might be a good idea if one of you have the time, to create a new thread just called Gay Marriage or whatever, move our posts there and let the President have his thread back)

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

So do you have an eye for a guy like me?

Well you play video games right? That's a good start.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Cheers to you, Thomkal. If you ever come around I'd be happy to buy you a drink in celebration!

I still have relatives living in your area

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by JAG

Glad you feel comfortable coming out now and congratulations on the victory. Sorry to hear about the strife with your brother, in some ways this might help since it will hopefully be less of a political matter now.

Yeah he called me earlier in the week and wants to help me with some medical issues I'm having, so who knows maybe we can talk about it like brothers. Thanks

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I am glad that the decision got you to come out of the FOFC shadows, Thomkal. Glad to know a little bit more of the real you.

Thanks Albion. Yean I'm a pretty private guy over personal issues generally-so I generally comment on someone elses issues if I feel like I can add something useful to the discussion.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Very happy for you Dan. Both for the decision and for you feeling comfortable to share this with us. I hope your brother someday opens his mind and softens his stance.

Thanks so much George. Feel like you are a good friend over at FOBL, and I'm really happy to have your support on this. And about my brother, I hope so too, but this will be a pretty big blow to him, and I'm not sure how he will react to it.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Though many of my Christian friends will not see it this way, this is what is on my Facebook and how I will endeavor to respond. I hope most of them will join me.





I appreciate you sharing this. As a former conservative(still am on social issues such as this) and a believer I have a similar conflict with one of my younger brothers who is aggressively agnostic. I can identify with your statement here as we have had a similar struggle to what you describe and there is little we can talk about without him becoming upset so we just basically don't talk about things that we can't find common interest/ground in(which is most of them). It saddens me a lot but I do the best I can with it.

You get nothing but kudos so far as making this statement here is concerned. It is always best to be honest and straightforward, and I am glad you felt free to do so.

Thanks Brian, your words meant a lot to me, coming from the "other side" so to speak. I hope someday you will repair things with your brother too. It is very hard to find common grounds or "safe" topics we can talk about more so now that the ruling has gone into effect.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Congrats, Thomkal! I do hope your brother can find some peace with this at some point.

Now you can focus all of your attention back onto your beloved Cards!

Palmer's back so its Super Bowl Bound baby! (at least until all three starters are knocked out for the season that is

[Draft Dodger]

congrats Dan!