[Maryland Girl]

Originally Posted by rubicon

janmcn: that is what Kennedy's decision just did and purposefully because he wants a federal decision ergo right back to ignoring we the people

If gay marriage is federalized as abortion was, we may be headed down the same path as abortion, which has been a continuous issue for decades with those for and against taking extreme positions. It may be that those who believe that abortion and gay marriage go against the natural law of God will be very difficult to persuade otherwise. Thus, we may have years of litigation and bitterness and continue as a nation to fracture culturally.

[ilovetv]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

The Sermon on the Mount is one of the most beautiful things in all literature-- world literature. It also seems to spread a message of treating people like your yourself would like to be treated. I sincerely belief that if Jesus were walking this earth in 2013 like he did around 33 he would extend human rights to gays/lesbians.

Many religions around the world have ideas/ideals like the Sermon on the Mount and the Golden Rule. Matthew 5-7 NIV - Introduction to the Sermon on the Mount - Bible Gateway Golden Rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

True. And likewise it is worthy to note that Jesus declared in this same passage this admonition:

6 “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs.

If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces."

And clearly, Jesus considered the books/scrolls of Moses and all the Prophets to be "sacred" scriptures:

14 Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, and news about him spread through the whole countryside. 15 He was teaching in their synagogues, and everyone praised him.

16 He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. He stood up to read, and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:

18 “The Spirit of the Lord is on me,because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”

20 Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him.

21 He began by saying to them, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”

Luke 4 NIV - Jesus Is Tested in the Wilderness - Bible Gateway

[rubicon]

Originally Posted by gomoho

Rubicon - to your "we the people" comment, I don't think that matters much anymore. It's more about "us - we want what we want and to hell with the rest of you".
However - I believe what the Supreme Court ruled was that prop 8 that defeated gay marriage was unconstitutional so it doesn't really matter what the people say - we can't vote to approve something they deem unconstitutional. Not saying it is right or wrong - it is the law of the land.

gomoho thanks for listening...what the Supreme court did is my point Justice Scalia said as much but of course with more elegance and intelligently positioned. Because of the emotional pouring out over this issue this salient and critical issue is being lost on citizens. its an encroachment on our individuals rights and we had a right to decide here not the Court. What else will be next?

[Maryland Girl]

Originally Posted by gomoho

Rubicon - to your "we the people" comment, I don't think that matters much anymore. It's more about "us - we want what we want and to hell with the rest of you".
However - I believe what the Supreme Court ruled was that prop 8 that defeated gay marriage was unconstitutional so it doesn't really matter what the people say - we can't vote to approve something they deem unconstitutional. Not saying it is right or wrong - it is the law of the land.

Yes, Justice Scalia said that the majority opinion written by Justice Kennedy made it sound as if those against gay marriage were less than human. The Supreme Court itself is becoming very fractured just as the nation is. Neither side will acquiesce, as the issue of abortion aptly demonstrates, just because the Supreme Court rules in a given way. Groups have already filed a petition with the Court to stop the immediate implementation of gay marriage in California on various legal grounds. Federalizing these cultural issues continues to fracture the nation.

[Golfingnut]

Originally Posted by rubicon

Whoa! Posters continue down the same paths God/bible arguments are going nowhere because it is a he says she says argument. What I well say is that the bible reflects customs, thoughts, positions down the ages and it is apparent that from the beginning the position on homosexuality has not changed.

Posters also continue with emotional position they have a right to marry equal protection----That is not an argument. I have said previously this is an issue of nature or natural selection in which natural selection from the beginning was procreation to perpetuate the species. Had natural selection been same sex the human race would have disappeared. It seem there are no takers to refute that position and to speak to the issue in a purely clinical manner. Why? And, so the response will be they have a right to----further deflecting any cogent conversation

So again what are the sociological consequences and why is it that such decisions are taken out of the hands of we the people? Again no takers

I may be dead wrong but I am waiting for a counterpoint

I do fear you are correct about the sociological consequences as being very serious and detrimental to our way of life, but what about the terrible hurt we inflict on those outside the status quo. I will read with the utmost seriousness to your opinion on those poor souls. Is there a way to satisfy the needs and desires of both sides of this issue.

[rubicon]

Originally Posted by Golfingnut

I do fear you are correct about the sociological consequences as being very serious and detrimental to our way of life, but what about the terrible hurt we inflict on those outside the status quo. I will read with the utmost seriousness to your opinion on those poor souls. Is there a way to satisfy the needs and desires of both sides of this issue.

Golfingnut: Ah there within lies the rub. This thing called equal protection, equal rights and social justice well it has nature's limitations. A handicap equalizes score among players but it can't make the higher handicapper a better player. A law passed may remedy a situation by leveling fields or accessing entrances once closed but it can't make everyone an equal only provide an equal opportunity. Given that opportunity one then must consider the benefits/consequences. Again golf. Let's say this high handicapper feels his desire to go to Q school is being dismissed out of hand. He sues claiming the requirements are unfair. let's assume he wins his lawsuit. The Q school has to admit him. However, we know from the start that this guy is going to wash out the first week, if he lasts that long.

I was transferred down south to a very prejudice city. I do not have leanings one way or another concerning race. I had on two occasions come to the defense of two minorities with whom I believed were being mistreated. It did not ingratiate me with the locals . and career wise damage me

As to this issue. There are remedies being used to unite same sex that have been ongoing and have not deterred same sex couples from living together. However I disagree with DOMA being ruled unconstitutional. I also believe that since there has been an appreciable amount of time since same sex couples have reared children more than one fact finding study ought to be done. The one I read was not complimentary to same sex. If this is so then might it be that kids placed in these families are not getting their equal protection under the law?

On the lighter side I can imagine some of those same sex couples pushing for marriage to one day say "Watch what you wish for you just might get it.

[Golfingnut]

Originally Posted by rubicon

Golfingnut: Ah there within lies the rub. This thing called equal protection, equal rights and social justice well it has nature's limitations. A handicap equalizes score among players but it can't make the higher handicapper a better player. A law passed may remedy a situation by leveling fields or accessing entrances once closed but it can't make everyone an equal only provide an equal opportunity. Given that opportunity one then must consider the benefits/consequences. Again golf. Let's say this high handicapper feels his desire to go to Q school is being dismissed out of hand. He sues claiming the requirements are unfair. let's assume he wins his lawsuit. The Q school has to admit him. However, we know from the start that this guy is going to wash out the first week, if he lasts that long.

I was transferred down south to a very prejudice city. I do not have leanings one way or another concerning race. I had on two occasions come to the defense of two minorities with whom I believed were being mistreated. It did not ingratiate me with the locals . and career wise damage me

As to this issue. There are remedies being used to unite same sex that have been ongoing and have not deterred same sex couples from living together. However I disagree with DOMA being ruled unconstitutional. I also believe that since there has been an appreciable amount of time since same sex couples have reared children more than one fact finding study ought to be done. The one I read was not complimentary to same sex. If this is so then might it be that kids placed in these families are not getting their equal protection under the law?

On the lighter side I can imagine some of those same sex couples pushing for marriage to one day say "Watch what you wish for you just might get it.

WOW! I don't get a warm and fuzzy, but I do see your concern. I am reminded of a saying "it is for the greater good". How can one say it is what it is and yet I feel guilty for what I see as unfair. I was born into a family that understood that the ones that made it deserved it, yet I saw small variations that kept some from climbing the latter to success. I made it to so does that mean I deserved it yet some who did so well in my Childhood did not. I question why my childhood friends whom had no apparent roadblocks having a difficult time and then must open my heart to the problems loaded onto the backs of gay individuals. I guess I feel guilty for being born with the advantage of being straight, white, and male. Would I be living this wonderful life in the villages had I been born gay, minority and women. ??? I just want to be sure the playing field is as level as possible, then maybe we all deserve what we end up with in the end.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

Boy Howdy....

Some people don't give a rip whose feelings they are treading on.

I am a Catholic who does NOT believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible, but other people do.

Those other people have a right to their beliefs. We have NO right to try to change their views. If they are NOT harming anyone by word or deed than leave them alone. I think religion becomes real murky when it comes to bombing folks. Real wrong. But religion is an important part of most people's lives and the freedom to believe as we wish was one of the the main reason this country began.

GracieGirl, please forgive me for deleting from your post all the points that would be valid in other threads but are off topic here.

Most rational people would agree with your point in bold above (my emphasis). In all fairness, wouldn't the reverse be true too? What makes it okay for the religious folks you support to challenge those who rejoice in a legal decision relating to social equality with an endless litany of Bible quotes? It would seem to me that the same should be true both ways.

Originally Posted by tucson

everyone makes choices in what they believe, either you believe in what "man" says is or you believe what God says is true. I choose to believe what God says is true, ( and the Bible IS the Word of God) because God can NOT lie)

I asked the question earlier and received no response, but I'll ask again: WHICH Bible is "the Word of God"? There are so many Bibles out there available to us, and they do vary. Much of my adult life I've heard "Christians" question whether the Bible of the Church of Latter Day Saints is really "Christian." The Reformation came about, the result of which are countless Protestant sects, because of disagreement with the views of the Roman Catholic church. (And one of those sects, as I pointed out earlier, is the one of Phelps and his followers: Baptist.) So, according to the point in bold above (again my emphasis), again I ask WHICH Bible is "the Word of God"? And to go one step further, why are the other Bibles NOT "the Word of God"?

Originally Posted by janmcn

.... This decision by the Supreme Court was based entirely on the law and not on any religious beliefs, which is why this country has a very strict separation of church and state.

Originally Posted by gomoho

.... I believe what the Supreme Court ruled was that prop 8 that defeated gay marriage was unconstitutional so it doesn't really matter what the people say - we can't vote to approve something they deem unconstitutional. Not saying it is right or wrong - it is the law of the land.

Well, there's no disputing the points in bold (once more my emphasis) made in these two quotes. The law is the law, notwithstanding anyone's personal disagreement with it.

Originally Posted by rubicon

janmcn: that is what Kennedy's decision just did and purposefully because he wants a federal decision ergo right back to ignoring we the people

Can you document the point made in bold above (once more my emphasis)? Is this something Justice Kennedy said either in his decision or afterward? If not, could you please explain where your statement comes from ? Speaking for myself, I can never profess to know what goes on in the mind of another; that's part of God's domain....

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by ilovetv

True. And likewise it is worthy to note that Jesus declared in this same passage this admonition:

6 “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs.

If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces."

And clearly, Jesus considered the books/scrolls of Moses and all the Prophets to be "sacred" scriptures:

14 Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, and news about him spread through the whole countryside. 15 He was teaching in their synagogues, and everyone praised him.

16 He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. He stood up to read, and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:

18 “The Spirit of the Lord is on me,because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”

20 Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him.

21 He began by saying to them, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”

Luke 4 NIV - Jesus Is Tested in the Wilderness - Bible Gateway

You can hand pick stuff from the Bible to prove just about anything. The message of the Sermon on the Mount seems to be hinged on the Golden Rule and the best tenets of the Christian religion. Jesus had to survive to get his message out so he did have to make various concessions to the Jewish faith as well as to the Roman/Jewish government.

[tucson]

I'm not here on this blog to argue about my beliefs in the Bible, I'm only accountable to God, as is every other human on earth :-)

[Golfingnut]

[QUOTE=Quixote;700394]GracieGirl, please forgive me for deleting from your post all the points that would be valid in other threads but are off topic here.

Most rational people would agree with your point in bold above (my emphasis). In all fairness, wouldn't the reverse be true too? What makes it okay for the religious folks you support to challenge those who rejoice in a legal decision relating to social equality with an endless litany of Bible quotes? It would seem to me that the same should be true both ways)]

Well said and not clouded with confusing references thanks for clarifying .

[Taltarzac725]

Baylor University || Christian Ethics || Sermon on the Mount Library

This is a very interesting website about the Christian ethics in the Sermon on the Mount.

I do sincerely believe that Jesus would want people to treat other people how they themselves would want to be treated. That means giving them equal rights and opportunities. Same sex marriages would follow from this.

[janmcn]

Originally Posted by rubicon

gomoho thanks for listening...what the Supreme court did is my point Justice Scalia said as much but of course with more elegance and intelligently positioned. Because of the emotional pouring out over this issue this salient and critical issue is being lost on citizens. its an encroachment on our individuals rights and we had a right to decide here not the Court. What else will be next?

If you lived in Florida in 2008 and voted in the election in November, you had the right to decide on the constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. As I remember, it passed with 61% of the vote.

According to the Tampa Bay Times "Since 2008, Florida's Constitution has banned same-sex marriage. Gov Rick Scott, reacting to the rulings said: "It impacted federal law, not state law...As the governor of this state, I'll uphold the law of the land, and that's the law of our state."

[Golfingnut]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

Baylor University || Christian Ethics || Sermon on the Mount Library

This is a very interesting website about the Christian ethics in the Sermon on the Mount.

I do sincerely believe that Jesus would want people to treat other people how they themselves would want to be treated. That means giving them equal rights and opportunities. Same sex marriages would follow from this.

[Portia]

the governor wont be in office forever,and someone new with different ideas will take his place,then maybe another vote..don't ever say never that's what ..states of new York and conn and rhode island said too!!!