Same-sex marriages are now legal in Florida

[StephanieSomer]

I don't believe that religious organizations/churches should be coerced into accepting/conducting same-sex or other non-traditional marriages, nor should they be punished, civilly or criminally for NOT doing so. Nor should they be "infiltrated" to force change from within. Separation of church and state means the state keeping its nose out of the church's business as well. There are plenty of other venues and methods to conduct non-traditional marriages without forcefully bending the religious bodies to your will.

Bolding mine.

The way you phrased this really surprised me. The addition of "as well" on the end actually doesn't belong there. The entire principle of "separation of church and state" is never called that in the Constitution, or any other legal document. That phrase was derived from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a church in which he essentially interpreted the purpose within the Constitution of certain delineated rights. The whole thrust of Jefferson's letter was that "Separation of church and state means the state keeping its nose out of the church's business", period.

It was the notion of "as well" which was added early in the 20th century that led to restrictions being placed on the churches. The "as well" was added and the order of Jefferson's original meaning reversed to "Separation of church and state means the church not meddling in state affairs as well" to allow such restrictions.

 

[Aldebaran]

Bolding mine.

The way you phrased this really surprised me. The addition of "as well" on the end actually doesn't belong there. The entire principle of "separation of church and state" is never called that in the Constitution, or any other legal document. That phrase was derived from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a church in which he essentially interpreted the purpose within the Constitution of certain delineated rights. The whole thrust of Jefferson's letter was that "Separation of church and state means the state keeping its nose out of the church's business", period.

It was the notion of "as well" which was added early in the 20th century that led to restrictions being placed on the churches. The "as well" was added and the order of Jefferson's original meaning reversed to "Separation of church and state means the church not meddling in state affairs as well" to allow such restrictions.

A more direct approach is to look at the wording of the first amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#cite_note-1

I think the part I bolded applies to what we've been talking about. If a government entity tells people that they must violate their own conscience to do something that violates a part of their own religion with threat of penalty by the government, then they are clearly being prohibited from the free exercise of their religious rights.

 

[StephanieSomer]

A more direct approach is to look at the wording of the first amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I think the part I bolded applies to what we've been talking about. If a government entity tells people that they must violate their own conscience to do something that violates a part of their own religion with threat of penalty by the government, then they are clearly being prohibited from the free exercise of their religious rights.

There is no Constitutional violation taking place. There are no religious tenets being violated, only individual preferences. All people clearly DO have a right to their preferences. But, as in all controversies concerning "rights", what counts is "which right supersedes the other"? It is specifically that question which restricts your freedom of speech right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. The right of safety of the population supercedes your right of free speech. SSM is of the same type of issue. Whose rights supercede the others? Contrary to what many hold to be true, the Church does not own marriage. Marriage was a gift of God given to the entire race, not a privileged few. Once the gift is given, it rightfully belongs to the recipient. So, the recipient has the right to determine what to do with it's own possessions. I may, or may not, agree with SSM, but I do recognize the truth of the issue and whose rights are being trampled. This is not a religious issue. It is a civil rights issue. By Biblical standards, hate is prohibited. By civil law, it is protected. Biblical pronouncements are aimed at individual behavior, not the population. Mass behavior falls under the authority of government, which IS established by God. Government, acting as the collective conscience, holds the authority to define what constitutes marriage, and who may marry, within the borders of the state which it controls. The question which is up currently, is which government has the final say, federal or state. In my own mind, I would say the state. However, I'm pretty sure the federal government will use this issue to expand it's influence and crowd out the power of the states further.

 

[Aldebaran]

There is no Constitutional violation taking place. There are no religious tenets being violated, only individual preferences. All people clearly DO have a right to their preferences. But, as in all controversies concerning "rights", what counts is "which right supersedes the other"? It is specifically that question which restricts your freedom of speech right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

I stopped reading at this point because I've heard this so many times. It's a strawman argument and not worth getting into.

 

[tulc]

I stopped reading at this point because I've heard this so many times. It's a strawman argument and not worth getting into.

hmm..you realize that was an example not her argument, right? Or you would have if you'd read the rest of the comment. How about if I post the rest with that part left out:

SSM is of the same type of issue. Whose rights supercede the others? Contrary to what many hold to be true, the Church does not own marriage. Marriage was a gift of God given to the entire race, not a privileged few. Once the gift is given, it rightfully belongs to the recipient. So, the recipient has the right to determine what to do with it's own possessions. I may, or may not, agree with SSM, but I do recognize the truth of the issue and whose rights are being trampled. This is not a religious issue. It is a civil rights issue. By Biblical standards, hate is prohibited. By civil law, it is protected. Biblical pronouncements are aimed at individual behavior, not the population. Mass behavior falls under the authority of government, which IS established by God. Government, acting as the collective conscience, holds the authority to define what constitutes marriage, and who may marry, within the borders of the state which it controls. The question which is up currently, is which government has the final say, federal or state. In my own mind, I would say the state. However, I'm pretty sure the federal government will use this issue to expand it's influence and crowd out the power of the states further.

because I suspect there were things in it you might agree with.
tulc(is trying to help)

 

[Slappi]

This is a Christian Forum correct? I'm new here and just read through this thread and I am confused. I thought this Forum was for Christians only? I mean I guess anyone could call themselves a Christian but in reality not truly be a follower of Christ's teachings. It is kind of hard to wade through this place with many professing a Christian faith but openly promoting and condoning an obvious sin.

Homosexual contact is a sin... Clearly stated in the Holy Bible. I guess you could make your own Bible up and twist scripture around, change a word here or there to suit your own gnostic beliefs but the Bible I have in front of me here, KJV, it is sin. Not only is it sin, it is OBVIOUSLY a sin. No grey area so to speak. Then to stretch that to include that homosexual practicing humans should be allowed to marry and thinking that our Father not only condones such a union but actually will bless such is really going too far and is an outright evil, wicked teaching.

I understand this thread was to debate the legality of SSM and I did indeed read the sticky on SSM threads but some of the posts here touch on promotion of SSM and by extension promotion of Homosexual contact.

Example of a post by a self proclaiming Christian ironically going by the ID TheChristianSurvivalGuide who is happy that SSM is spreading and condones such as he states......

Why is it any surprise to you? Many Christian churches have become tolerant if not outright accepting of homosexuality. Check out what happened at the last General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church.

And what of those so-called churches? John himself in the Book of Revelation talks about churches such as these. In fact I wouldn't even go that far as to call them Assemblies of our coming Savior. They should be more aptly named Synagogues of Satan, which I believe is indeed what John calls them if I remember correctly. They are just another form of Gnosticism which Paul incessantly fought against throughout his ministry. This is nothing new, just repackaged evil thought looking for a following and actually gaining one in today's world. But it is amazing to me however that the Gnostics of today get away with it so easily and to the point of not only gaining a foothold but winning major battles in this area within the so-called churches. All forms of Gnosticism are like cancer but this form of Gnosticism is more like a very aggressive type that infects and destroys good flesh at a rapid pace. I feel it has moved too far too fast for a mere human to destroy it. Hopefully I'm wrong but I feel it will take the future coming of our Savior to end this.

A Great Apostle once stated that practitioners of homosexual activity (among other obvious sins), would not inherit the coming Kingdom of our Father. Those condoning and promoting sin by extension will not inherit it as well. So your ID, TheChristianSurvivalGuide is, in fact, ironic in that if others followed your example they would not only not survive but actually die, twice. So after stating your joy in the fact that SSM is spreading, others actually go on to debate you as if you are actually coming from a Christian point of view which you obviously are not.

I'm not really sure how you could even debate this with some of these posters here who butcher the Word to suit their own whims. If they so callously butcher the Word how much more so would they butcher the Constitution?


Now I understand that this nation is no longer following God as it once had. So in that regard I can unfortunately see how Christians could debate the secular legalities of something such as SSM. However I think it will all be moot within the coming month as I feel the USSC will open the floodgates to this disgusting practice. Hopefully those engulfed in this sin will seek truth and come out of that lifestyle and not fall victim to the growing gnostic "churches" and their lies.

 

[Aldebaran]

This is a Christian Forum correct? I'm new here and just read through this thread and I am confused. I thought this Forum was for Christians only? I mean I guess anyone could call themselves a Christian but in reality not truly be a follower of Christ's teachings. It is kind of hard to wade through this place with many professing a Christian faith but openly promoting and condoning an obvious sin.

It's a symptom of the politically correct "tolerance" that people are being taught they are supposed to have. If we call something a sin because it is called sin in the bible, then we're told we're being intolerant and unloving. So many Christians will want to be seen as tolerant and loving, so they embrace the sinner along with their sin and accept and tolerate it in the name of "love", while at the same time turning a blind eye to what the bible is telling us.

Some Christians will also say they don't believe everything the bible says. They'll say some events in the bible weren't literal, but only stories put in there by scribes in order to fill in missing data. Some will say certain events were just allegories.

Also, keep in mind that there also many nonChristians here who will tell you openly that they used to be Christians, but now they come here to try to persuade Christians why they should leave. I'm really puzzled at how they are allowed to stay here and do that, but I like to see it as an opportunity to bring them back. I realize also that some nonbelievers are here out of curiosity and want to learn. We just have to try to distinguish them from the ones who are only here to cause trouble.

 

[Slappi]

It's a symptom of the politically correct "tolerance" that people are being taught they are supposed to have. If we call something a sin because it is called sin in the bible, then we're told we're being intolerant and unloving. So many Christians will want to be seen as tolerant and loving, so they embrace the sinner along with their sin and accept and tolerate it in the name of "love", while at the same time turning a blind eye to what the bible is telling us.

Some Christians will also say they don't believe everything the bible says. They'll say some events in the bible weren't literal, but only stories put in there by scribes in order to fill in missing data. Some will say certain events were just allegories.

Also, keep in mind that there also many nonChristians here who will tell you openly that they used to be Christians, but now they come here to try to persuade Christians why they should leave. I'm really puzzled at how they are allowed to stay here and do that, but I like to see it as an opportunity to bring them back. I realize also that some nonbelievers are here out of curiosity and want to learn. We just have to try to distinguish them from the ones who are only here to cause trouble.

Well said and thank you for giving me some insight to the makeup of these forums.

 

[Aldebaran]

Well said and thank you for giving me some insight to the makeup of these forums.

My pleasure!
Also, welcome to CF, and I hope you make lots of friends here.

 

[Kathryn Jensen]

Legalizing morals gets very tricky. It is my belief that God's plan for this nation was similar to His plan for Christians (He He abolishes Law and writes His laws on their hearts). Our own Bill of Rights prohibits the establishment of a religion (as was the case with Catholicism). God's intention was to place Christians in this country with the non-Christians to live amongst each other (working with and working for, including serving them as customers), allowing the Holy Spirit, through the Christians, to bring the "lost" to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. God then brings change from the inside out. We don't legalize morals (though I disagree with abortion being legal), we save the people and they live the morals in their personal lives. It's parallel to what God did with the Mosaic Law and the New Covenant.

I Cor 5: 9- Makes it clear who we judge:
I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolators; for then you would have to go out of the world. But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he should be an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolator, or reviler, or a drunkard, or swindler-not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED FROM AMONG YOURSELVES.

I do not agree with legislation regarding pastors marrying homosexual couples, however. Besides the fact that the church is not a business (thought it's become BIG business) and can not be held to the same standard, we have to separate religion from state. This is where it's important for that separation. The Bill of Rights covers the free exercise of religion and that must include their ability to refrain from ungodly acts. If the government ever requires Bible believing pastors to marry homosexuals I do believe God's hand will come down pretty hard on this nation. It's already happening, of course.

~ not gonna proofread.[/QUOTE]

 

[Marius27]

This is a Christian Forum correct? I'm new here and just read through this thread and I am confused. I thought this Forum was for Christians only? I mean I guess anyone could call themselves a Christian but in reality not truly be a follower of Christ's teachings. It is kind of hard to wade through this place with many professing a Christian faith but openly promoting and condoning an obvious sin.

Christ said not a negative thing about homosexuality, so that has nothing to do with following Christ. Loving your neighbor and not judging would be following Christ, yet anti-gays ignore those commands.

Homosexual contact is a sin... Clearly stated in the Holy Bible.

Only those who have never studied this issue or falsely think the Bible was written in English can make that claim. The actual "anti-gay" verses are quite vague and complicated.

I guess you could make your own Bible up and twist scripture around, change a word here or there to suit your own gnostic beliefs but the Bible I have in front of me here, KJV, it is sin.

You mean like the translators who changed the Bible to add homosexual in its list of sins in the 1940s? You are aware that didn't exist prior to that right?

Not only is it sin, it is OBVIOUSLY a sin. No grey area so to speak.

That's your personal opinion, which really means nothing. You clearly have not studied this issue.

A Great Apostle once stated that practitioners of homosexual activity (among other obvious sins), would not inherit the coming Kingdom of our Father.

Actually he didn't since the word in question did not mean homosexuals until the 1940s. We know for a fact it can't refer to homosexual women.

 

[Kathryn Jensen]

The problem regarding homosexuality, and any sin, is nothing new, human's want to do what humans want to do, and the more they compromise in that area, the less they see it as wrong. I had a single friend who became involved with a married man. Of course, prior to the affair or before she "fell in love with him," she would have told anyone that the bible is very clear that this was wrong. However, with each compromise, and once her "feelings" began to become a priority (it felt good), the more she began to justify her behavior. To make a long story short, toward the end, she truly believed that because she was single and that God allowed common law marriages (concubines), that her relationship was completely acceptable before God.

Of course, anyone on the outside, who had not gone through the process of compromise and where it leads the thought process, would be shocked that a normally rational woman could go from one extreme to another in how they interpret the Bible. But man wants what man wants, and man will find a way to get it, even if it means compromise.

God has as order that He designed. People seem to think that grace means that they can do whatever they want to

 

[Slappi]

Christ said not a negative thing about homosexuality, so that has nothing to do with following Christ. Loving your neighbor and not judging would be following Christ, yet anti-gays ignore those commands.

Only those who have never studied this issue or falsely think the Bible was written in English can make that claim. The actual "anti-gay" verses are quite vague and complicated. You mean like the translators who changed the Bible to add homosexual in its list of sins in the 1940s? You are aware that didn't exist prior to that right?

That's your personal opinion, which really means nothing. You clearly have not studied this issue.



Actually he didn't since the word in question did not mean homosexuals until the 1940s. We know for a fact it can't refer to homosexual women.

So Anti-Gay is the new term huh? Nice try but Anti-Sin is the correct term. Keep twisting the scripture to suit your own sins. Just because you believe the lie does not in any way make it the Truth.

There is no point debating someone that changes scripture to suit their own sinful ways. Jesus came to teach us the Truth not a lie. There is no grey area here. There is no room for tolerance here. It is not my opinion. Homosexual contact is a SIN. Only way for a human being calling themselves a Christian to accept the homosexual lifestyle within the Church is to believe a lie. To twist scripture. To twist it like a wick, wicked. What you are doing with scripture is wicked. Life is short... we'll all answer for what we have done while on this Earth.

You not only believe the OBVIOUS lie you also have chosen to spread the lie and lead others into death.

Marius, all you are doing is leading others to the second death right along with yourself. You call that which is sin, not sin, and that which is wrong you call right. We were warned numerous times about people such as yourself in the Bible but I'm sure you have a twisted version of those versus as well.

 

[Kathryn Jensen]

People who want to justify their sin will find any means to do so, even avoiding or twisting Scripture. By the time you have compromised to that point you are in such a state of oppression, that you are blind, so to speak, to your compromise. In Romans it says that God "gives you over to this..." after continued compromise. They don't want to know the truth. They only want THEIR truth (or my truth, if it were me).

Romans 1: 18- discusses the sexual sin of homosexuality. People act as if God never had any "laws" prior to the Mosaic Law or that because Christians are under a new covenant (Mosaic Law being specific to Israel) that God has zero laws and expects zero obedience. "If you love Me you will obey my commandments." I John

Sodom and Gomorrah was prior to the ML; however, they will just find excuses for why their destructions doesn't quality. It wouldn't matter what was presented. There will be an excuse for the desired sin, or way of life contrary to God's ordained way of life. I can tell you one thing and that is that God will never bless a penis being placed where fecal material is excreted and call that love. Never! God ordained the pens and the vagina and even nature makes this clear. Women can't do anything except have oral sex...There is no "the two becoming one..." as God ordained it.

Penis in anus (meant for excretion) and mouth to vagina is not God ordained love and relationship. And sex is a part of God ordained love and relationship (marriage).

 

[tulc]

People who want to justify their sin will find any means to do so, even avoiding or twisting Scripture. By the time you have compromised to that point you are in such a state of oppression, that you are blind, so to speak, to your compromise. In Romans it says that God "gives you over to this..." after continued compromise. They don't want to know the truth. They only want THEIR truth (or my truth, if it were me).

Romans 1: 18- discusses the sexual sin of homosexuality. People act as if God never had any "laws" prior to the Mosaic Law or that because Christians are under a new covenant (Mosaic Law being specific to Israel) that God has zero laws and expects zero obedience. "If you love Me you will obey my commandments." I John

Sodom and Gomorrah was prior to the ML; however, they will just find excuses for why their destructions doesn't quality. It wouldn't matter what was presented. There will be an excuse for the desired sin, or way of life contrary to God's ordained way of life. I can tell you one thing and that is that God will never bless a penis being placed where fecal material is excreted and call that love. Never! God ordained the pens and the vagina and even nature makes this clear. Women can't do anything except have oral sex...There is no "the two becoming one..." as God ordained it.

Penis in anus (meant for excretion) and mouth to vagina is not God ordained love and relationship. And sex is a part of God ordained love and relationship (marriage). (emph. added)

About the bolded portion: You mean like Scriptures that contradict the whole "Sodom was destroyed because of the gays!!"

48 As I live, saith the Lord God, Sodom thy sister hath not done, she nor her daughters, as thou hast done, thou and thy daughters.

49 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

tulc(knows how frustrating it is when the Bible disagrees with your opinion)

 

[DiJ]

About the bolded portion: You mean like Scriptures that contradict the whole "Sodom was destroyed because of the gays!!"

It doesn't matter if there is only one Scripture in the whole bible that says that when God instituted marriage that it was between a male and female. That's all there would need to be. Having said that, from the very beginning to the end, we see it. There not one Scripture that ever mentions a man with a man or a woman with a woman. Not one God ordained example. Not from the beginning of creation to the close of Revelation. It's all about male and female or husband and wife. You can distort God's words and say that gays call their male spouses "wives." : ( Lesbians can say that one of the "spouses" is referred to as "husband." But that's utterly ridiculous. There really is no debate here. From front to back, it's clear what God ordained in male and female. Anything else is not from God. In the OT, you will not find one religious Jew that will say that God ordained homosexuality. In the NT, there is not one mention of husband and husband or wife and wife. God never redefined marriage after Jesus died. When the disciples and apostles were writing to the churches (God knowing that one day He would choose many of them to be canonized), the Holy Spirit never prompted them to redefine marriage. All the Scriptures condemning homosexuality still mean what they say. Arsenokoites will always be referring to a male engaging in same gender sexual activity (regardless of whether a secular gov decides they can marry). The same gov legalizes the killing of human life through abortion. They will face God one day for both decisions.

The homosexual/shellfish argument is just ridiculous. They aren't equal. Homosexuality was a capital offense: "And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." No one was put to death for dietary restrictions.

Dietary restrictions changed in the NT, but homosexuality did not. God never intended for a penis to be placed where fecal material is extracted and then call it love. It is so evident with the creation of the male and female what God intended, and never changed. No need to mention women with women, can't really have a God ordained sexual relationship.

The argument about Sodom and Gomorrah is ridiculous too. "And the Lord said, "The outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah is indeed great, and their sin in exceedingly grave." There were not even 10 righteous people in Sodom. Such debauchery and lack of spiritual discernment that they wanted to rape angels. Gen 19:5- the whole sick story is there. The town is so given over to sexual sin that they want to break down the door to have sex with the angels. Do you really believe that God was going to destroy the city because they overate and did not help the poor? Really? I mean, really? And because Lot's wife looked back longingly on a city that overate and didn't help the poor, she was turned to salt? Really? There is just not much to say to that....Perhaps the next verse, "Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me. Therefore I removed them when I saw it," is more the reason. Since homosexuality was an abomination and a capital crime. Glutton was not a capital crime. I'm sure there were many other evils/sins being done in that town. They weren't a God-serving town.

When God doesn't define what love is then anything can be called love (and thus marriage). Once you decide that sex is ok with whomever you please (my sexual orientation is my right) the next step is legalizing it (like NAMBLA will be doing soon with man/boy relationships and those who want to have sex with animals will be doing/are doing. THEN, once it's legal, the next step is calling it love, then the next "redefining marriage to suit it." At the rate we are going in our redefinition of sex and now marriage...it will soon be legal for men and women to have sex (using the term loosely for women) with children and humans to have sex with animals. I've read that because people believe that the animals enjoy having sex with them that it's perfectly acceptable...what do you even say to that. And that the children are consensual, so it's perfectly justified. Where does it end when God does not define sex and love? It doesn't because man will do whatever feels good and right to him, in his own eyes (or body parts).



tulc(knows how frustrating it is when the Bible disagrees with your opinion)

I hope that it's frustrating enough to "be a doer of the word and not a hearer only deceiving yourself."

Not gonna proof read

 

[tulc]

this isn't a criticism this is just trying to help: I see you're new on the board and from your post I'm wondering if the whole "quoting someone elses post in my post" is a little confusing? if you click the button at the bottom right hand corner marked reply it puts the whole post you're trying to quote in a box at the top of your post and you can then refer to the post and reply to it. so then your post would look like this:

About the bolded portion: You mean like Scriptures that contradict the whole "Sodom was destroyed because of the gays!!"

tulc(knows how frustrating it is when the Bible disagrees with your opinion)

if you just like posting in the manner you did in your post I apologize if I came across like I'm "mansplaining" I just remember when I started on CF I had a pretty hard go at some of this stuff and appreciated when a couple of other posters explained how to do the above to me. any way, I hope your night is blessed and you do have fun here on CF.
tulc(will now resume being that crabby poster tulc in 3...2..1)

 

[DiJ]

this isn't a criticism this is just trying to help: I see you're new on the board and from your post I'm wondering if the whole "quoting someone elses post in my post" is a little confusing? if you click the button at the bottom right hand corner marked reply it puts the whole post you're trying to quote in a box at the top of your post and you can then refer to the post and reply to it. so then your post would look like this:

if you just like posting in the manner you did in your post I apologize if I came across like I'm "mansplaining" I just remember when I started on CF I had a pretty hard go at some of this stuff and appreciated when a couple of other posters explained how to do the above to me. any way, I hope your night is blessed and you do have fun here on CF.
tulc(will now resume being that crabby poster tulc in 3...2..1)

Is this for me? Lol Did i not do that? I thought i did. Oh wait...the original message was to me as Kathryn. I changed my profile because, duh, i didn't realize i had set my real name as my online name...so when i responded a post to me (Kathryb) using the new me (DiJ) i must have copied and pasted resulting in a sloppy post.....makes sense? No? Lol probably not lol

Thanks for your help...if this was to me...lol

 

[tulc]

It was indeed for you.
tulc(likes to help)

 

[DiJ]

QUOTE"tulc, post: 68244732, member: 2724"]It was indeed for you.
tulc(likes to help)

Well, thank you for your thoughtfulness, tulc..