Doma

[Yarddog]

I'll give that comment a big WHATEVER!

Nice chatting with ya.

 

[Archivist]

The bottom line is the will of the people was over ruled by the courts and justices. They can use all the legal mumbo jumbo and definitions they want, but the voice of the people was snuffed out by the legal system.

Using your reasoning, I presume that you believe that gay marriage should be legal in New Jersey. After all, polls show that a majority of the voters in NJ favor it and the legislature voted in favor of legalizing it. A single person--the governor--vetoed the bill and prevented it from becoming law.

 

[Archivist]

Sorry, I don't believe God will bless those who turn their backs on Him and His Word. What is written on their American money, (which many are also trying to remove by the way) "In God we trust" Ha!

Actually it is a fairly recent addition to US bills, and it wasn't even on the earlist US coins--the phrase that was used then was "Mind your Business."

A nation that trusts in God will do His will, and stand up for His holy Word in every aspect of it's governance and in every aspect of society and moral values it instills in it's peoples.

But the US is a secular nation.

Clearly in God Almighty this American Nation does not trust, and in doing so they will also suffer the same curses that befell the children of Israel for turning away from the only true God, and His Living Word.

You keep ignoring the fact that the Supreme Court didn't rule on the issues in this case because of a question of standing (or lack thereof). You don't seem to be comprehending that fact.

 

[InSpiritInTruth]

Using your reasoning, I presume that you believe that gay marriage should be legal in New Jersey. After all, polls show that a majority of the voters in NJ favor it and the legislature voted in favor of legalizing it. A single person--the governor--vetoed the bill and prevented it from becoming law.

Hats off to the governor then.

And no I don't believe gay marriage should be recognized anywhere because it is an abomination.

My comment was to show how the Judges by not making a judgment call on prop 8 also caused the majority vote of the people in California to be cancelled out.

The Supreme Court knew what it was doing by taking this inaction, as they also knew how the results of their decision would also bring the results they desired.

The majority of the people voted it out, the judges allowed it to be brought back in.

 

[InSpiritInTruth]

You keep ignoring the fact that the Supreme Court didn't rule on the issues in this case because of a question of standing (or lack thereof). You don't seem to be comprehending that fact.

I fully understand, as they also understood what would happen by their judgment call. (or lack thereof)

There is more than one way to skin a cat. Just as they had more than one way to get their desired results, and even save a little face in the process.

That serpent spirit is more cunning than all Gods beasts of the earth.

 

[Jake Brake]

Using your reasoning, I presume that you believe that gay marriage should be legal in New Jersey. After all, polls show that a majority of the voters in NJ favor it and the legislature voted in favor of legalizing it. A single person--the governor--vetoed the bill and prevented it from becoming law.

A veto can be over ridden by majority in the legislature a two third or three fourths vote, am I correct about that. If so, then it was those in the majority legislature that failed to pass the law. So, the governor may to be blamed for sending the bill back to the legislators through power of veto, it was the legislators who failed.
And since the legislators usually react to what their constituents desire on hot button social issues I suspect that the majority of citizens in New jersey do not support SSM.

 

[RDKirk]

Yes, exactly. That particular issue was a result of compromise in the name of unity, not a Braveheart-worthy cry of "freedom!" Otherwise the Civil War would have started the day after the Revolutionary War ended.

My purpose for posting that was that there is a far, far larger discrepancy between the 'story' of the founding and our current state, than the 'reality' of our founding and our current state.

This country has real problems, to be sure, but it's counterproductive to try to go back to the 'good old days' which never actually happened. That's all.

Let me agree, yes, the "good old days" never actually happened. The Constitution is a far different document from the Declaration of Independence.

I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever. -- Thomas Jefferson

Even from Day One, Jefferson was aware of the deep sin of the United States. However, I think the Founding Fathers were successful at fulfilling 1 Timothy 2: A nation where Christians could live out our lives in quiet humility and Godliness.

 

[ebia]

Hats off to the governor then.

And no I don't believe gay marriage should be recognized anywhere because it is an abomination.

My comment was to show how the Judges by not making a judgment call on prop 8 also caused the majority vote of the people in California to be cancelled out.

The Supreme Court knew what it was doing by taking this inaction, as they also knew how the results of their decision would also bring the results they desired.

The majority of the people voted it out, the judges allowed it to be brought back in.

Because their job is to make sure the law and the constitution are upheld.

If the people want to pass a law that is contrary to the constitution then they have to change the constitution first. That's the system of protection that's built into your system; when judges start listening to voters and stop listening to the constitution they have stopped being judges and started being politicians and you are in deep ....

But it's quite apparent that its not the right of voters that you care about. In your view a system is good if it produces the answer you want and corrupt if it doesn't and you cherry pick your principles to suit.

 

[InSpiritInTruth]

But it's quite apparent that its not the right of voters that you care about. In your view a system is good if it produces the answer you want and corrupt if it doesn't and you cherry pick your principles to suit.

Yeah I kinda like to choose the good and refuse the evil.

 

[McMatt]

Yeah I kinda like to choose the good and refuse the evil.

That logic is the exact reason that no one on this planet gives a crap about what christians think. First it is about how the government doesn't do as the people please, then you have no problems with the governor that sways things in your preferred direction against the polls of the voters. Law-making is a two way street in democratic governments, and if one is too ignorant to accept that fact, then I feel sorry for that individual.

 

[ebia]

Yeah I kinda like to choose the good and refuse the evil.

That's fine in theory. It's the ad-hoc inconsistency in supporting that that's a problem.

 

[InSpiritInTruth]

That logic is the exact reason that no one on this planet gives a crap about what christians think. First it is about how the government doesn't do as the people please, then you have no problems with the governor that sways things in your preferred direction against the polls of the voters. Law-making is a two way street in democratic governments, and if one is too ignorant to accept that fact, then I feel sorry for that individual.

The Lord is not a respecter of persons, neither am I. If 1 person does that which is good and right, and 10 persons do that which is bad and wrong, I'll stand with the 1 who does good and right.

I never said the majority was right in all things, as a matter of fact I know by the Word of God that the majority is evil, including politicians, lawmakers, and judges.

My point in the majority issue is the government is supposed to be by the people, and for the people, respecting the will of the voters.

But what we've seen recently is a government making these decisions on it's own, and not allowing the people to have a choice in the matter, even over riding that which was voted on by the people and congress.

But me personally, I judge things by what is right or wrong according to the word of God, no matter how many people agree or disagree with me.

If the Lord be with me cause I stand for righteousness, and yet 7 billion are against me because they stand for unrighteousness, then I pity the 7 billion.

 

[McMatt]

The Lord is not a respecter of persons, neither am I. If 1 person does that which is good and right, and 10 persons do that which is bad and wrong, I'll stand with the 1 who does good and right.

I never said the majority was right in all things, as a matter of fact I know by the Word of God that the majority is evil, including politicians, lawmakers, and judges.

My point in the majority issue is the government is supposed to be by the people, and for the people, respecting the will of the voters.

But what we've seen recently is a government making these decisions on it's own, and not allowing the people to have a choice in the matter, even over riding that which was voted on by the people and congress.

But me personally, I judge things by what is right or wrong according to the word of God, no matter how many people agree or disagree with me.

If the Lord be with me cause I stand for righteousness, and yet 7 billion are against me because they stand for unrighteousness, then I pity the 7 billion.

Where did you get the idea that the lord isn't a respecter of persons? Where did you get the idea that the majority of those in the world are evil? Jesus was a respecter and he commanded that you respect the laws of the land. The bible also states that those who are not believers are lost, not evil.

The government did not make this decision on its own. If you are going to say that is a problem, then you cannot say that you applaud the governor of the orange people in new jersey for vetoing recognition of same-sex marriages. I think you are afraid of sounding pompous with your opinion that everyone who does not agree with you is wrong. Anyways, there was a majority of support for recognizing same sex marriages and they did not shift any of the numbers.

Aside from that, the government is supposed to be for the people and by the people, but they still have to draw a line of morality. If all were in favour of making murder legal, would that be a good amendment to make to the laws? No. I would also go against majority rule if I had the power to do so. Just like the issue of same sex marriage, it is not fair for gays to be not allowed to wed. Their lifestyle is entirely their choice and it has no effect on the majority who is not gay. God even gave humans the free will to do as they please, for everyone is held accountable for their actions after this life. So you don't have to recognize homosexuality as good and non-sinful, but you need to recognize their god-sanctioned free will to be a homosexual.

I pity those who see things so narrowly and judgmentally

 

[InSpiritInTruth]

Where did you get the idea that the lord isn't a respecter of persons? Where did you get the idea that the majority of those in the world are evil? Jesus was a respecter and he commanded that you respect the laws of the land. The bible also states that those who are not believers are lost, not evil.

Aside from that, the government is supposed to be for the people and by the people, but they still have to draw a line of morality.

My ideas are based on the words of God, not men.

The Lord is no respecter of persons....

Acts 10:34
Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

And the majority of the world is evil...

1 John 5:19;"And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lies in wickedness"

And any of mans laws that is contrary to Gods laws deserves no respect.

And your comment about the government drawing a line of morality is laughable. By forcing into law what the Lord God Almighty considers an Abomination and immoral they are somehow drawing a line of morality?

Well perhaps they are on the wrong side of that moral line then Huh?

 

[Albion]

Where did you get the idea that the lord isn't a respecter of persons?

That's from the Bible.

Where did you get the idea that the majority of those in the world are evil?

That's also from the Bible.

The bible also states that those who are not believers are lost, not evil.

No, it also says they're evil. That doesn't mean they're all Hitlers, but they are estranged from God because of sin.

Aside from that, the government is supposed to be for the people and by the people, but they still have to draw a line of morality. If all were in favour of making murder legal, would that be a good amendment to make to the laws? No. I would also go against majority rule if I had the power to do so. Just like the issue of same sex marriage, it is not fair for gays to be not allowed to wed.

So which is it with you--"draw a line of morality" or not?

 

[McMatt]

My ideas are based on the words of God, not men.

The Lord is no respecter of persons....

Acts 10:34
Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

And the majority of the world is evil...

1 John 5:19;"And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lies in wickedness"

And any of mans laws that is contrary to Gods laws deserves no respect.

And your comment about the government drawing a line of morality is laughable. By forcing into law what the Lord God Almighty considers an Abomination and immoral they are somehow drawing a line of morality?

Well perhaps they are on the wrong side of that moral line then Huh?

Matthew 5:43-48: “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?

Those words really sound like they came from someone who was not a respecter of man.

Also, by moral line I mean it is immoral to not allow ssm. The fact of the matter is we are not in a specifically christian state (as church and state have been rightfully separated). So why should others be bound to religious law if they don't believe the same way? The only ssm opposition is from religious texts, so it is a line of morality that does need to be drawn. Would you like to be under sharia law? Or do you think that is bad for you because you are a christian?

 

[InSpiritInTruth]

Also, by moral line I mean it is immoral to not allow ssm.

What God says is immoral, man says is moral.....hmmmm.

I think I'll stick with Gods judgment on what is considered moral or immoral.

 

[McMatt]

What God says is immoral, man says is moral.....hmmmm.

I think I'll stick with Gods judgment on what is considered moral or immoral.

Again, you ignore the important points and go for an obscure sentence to spew some "holy" crap. Answer my question. By the way, I am a bill collector, I know when someone is dodging the question. Would you prefer to be under sharia law? Or is that no good for you because you are not muslim?

The point isn't about whether it is considered a biblically moral act or not. The point is that the whole world doesn't need to be governed by the laws of christianity because the majority of the world doesn't believe in christianity.

 

[Eagle27]

Again, you ignore the important points and go for an obscure sentence to spew some "holy" crap. Answer my question. By the way, I am a bill collector, I know when someone is dodging the question. Would you prefer to be under sharia law? Or is that no good for you because you are not muslim?

The point isn't about whether it is considered a biblically moral act or not. The point is that the whole world doesn't need to be governed by the laws of christianity because the majority of the world doesn't believe in christianity.

McMatt: I happen to agree with you here, in that respect.
It is not the duty of Christians to tell the world how to live, and I am a Christian saying this.
The concern of a Christian should be WITHIN their OWN house, not others.
For even if a gay stopped being gay, that doesn't make him/her a Christian.
Christianity is about SELF DENIAL, not lording over others.
The falling away from faith began long before homosexuals entered the world stage.

Ghandi said long ago: The whole world knows Jesus was non-violent, except Christians.
But the bigger issue is this: when men or nations enact laws and enforce them under the name of Christ, it is leaving their roles as servants and seeking to become masters.
America was built on the blood of Native Americans, who were killed only for their land.
And that by supposed Christians. They justified their acts by the Old Testament, forgetting that "those who live by the law will perish by the law," and that "in the manner you judge, ye shall be judged."
Only they did worse, they killed in the name of Christ.

I must confess, in today's world non-Christians often have a better understanding of these things.

 

[Eagle27]

Also, by moral line I mean it is immoral to not allow ssm. The fact of the matter is we are not in a specifically christian state (as church and state have been rightfully separated). So why should others be bound to religious law if they don't believe the same way? The only ssm opposition is from religious texts, so it is a line of morality that does need to be drawn. Would you like to be under sharia law? Or do you think that is bad for you because you are a christian?

That is not accurate. SSM was and would have been opposed by all up to the point of the current era.
It is against the laws of nature, not regarding the Scriptures here.

However, during the Cold War the Soviets would "entice" agents in high positions into giving over classified material to use against the USA.
So the government began to "slowly" promote homosexuality, first through movies, then books, and finally in the public.
Men would be sent videos of they and a KGB trained homosexual, and if they didn't hand over what was wanted, the tapes would be made public.
Many a man killed himself over this. Men who "cheated" on their wives.
(Gays are who gave the nuclear secrets to the Soviets under Stalin!)

But why do gays need to promote their disgusting habits (sodomy is disgusting!)?
For that matter, why does ANYONE, straight or gay, need to promote their sexual habits to the world?

That, in itself, is immoral, and history will show immoral nations do not last long.

But that is my PRIVATE opinion, that I use as an example.
As a Christian, I am to mind my own affairs in this world, and not jump onto the world stage over matters of this Nation.

Throughout Scriptures one thing is clear. All who lived under in faith kept their matters to themselves.
They did not seek to conquer the world or change the laws of nations.

What gets me is this: So called "Christians" seem to be hypocrites.
They boast of the laws of this land until they find the same law supports those who live in ways they disapprove of.
And they fail to see that the US Constitution was not written by the finger of God, but by men.