Supreme Court extends same-sex marriage nationwide

originally posted by: JohnFisher

EEh, lol No, I experience cognitive dissonance on many things, but I have zero inner conflict on this issue. No reduction here sir. And no, scripture is rather clear about homosexuality. I also have not said that I think religious liberties will be infringed upon. I do believe it's foolish not to be cautious though. Never mind the dissenting justice opinion over same-sex marriage. There is a trend arising, and we need to be wary. It's not characteristic of our government to disregard the constitution. See American history. Our constitution is little more than a good talking point. So there is a difference in interracial marriage and same-sex marriage. Yes, the position of the church as a whole is significant enough to make it a difference.

Well no CRAP you don't have inner conflict here. That's why I said you have the cognitive dissonance. You refuse to acknowledge my points and rationalize them away because they conflict with your opinion. THAT is cognitive dissonance. The only thing that saying there is no conflict within you tells me is that you do it so naturally that you don't even notice you are doing it.

And no, scripture isn't clear about homosexuality. I can find JUST as many people interpreting the bible that find no problem with homosexuality as you can find that do.

Here's one.
Here's another.
I can keep going too.

The Constitution is being ADHERED to with this ruling... They are adhering to the 14th Amendment. You can whine and cry about it all you want, but that's just the simple truth. They ruled in its favor for the SAME reasons as Loving V. Virginia. Again they are the same arguments. Your reasoning for them being different is still pretty weak (and still no links).

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: JohnFisher

EEh, lol No, I experience cognitive dissonance on many things, but I have zero inner conflict on this issue. No reduction here sir. And no, scripture is rather clear about homosexuality. I also have not said that I think religious liberties will be infringed upon. I do believe it's foolish not to be cautious though. Never mind the dissenting justice opinion over same-sex marriage. There is a trend arising, and we need to be wary. It's not characteristic of our government to disregard the constitution. See American history. Our constitution is little more than a good talking point. So there is a difference in interracial marriage and same-sex marriage. Yes, the position of the church as a whole is significant enough to make it a difference.

Well no CRAP you don't have inner conflict here. That's why I said you have the cognitive dissonance. You refuse to acknowledge my points and rationalize them away because they conflict with your opinion. THAT is cognitive dissonance. The only thing that saying there is no conflict within you tells me is that you do it so naturally that you don't even notice you are doing it.

And no, scripture isn't clear about homosexuality. I can find JUST as many people interpreting the bible that find no problem with homosexuality as you can find that do.

The Constitution is being ADHERED to with this ruling... They are adhering to the 14th Amendment. You can whine and cry about it all you want, but that's just the simple truth. They ruled in its favor for the SAME reasons as Loving V. Virginia. Again they are the same arguments. Your reasoning for them being different is still pretty weak (and still no links).

No, rationalize it away is one method of reduction in cognitive dissonance to alleviate the inner conflict one experiences.

Romans 1 is one example where it gets pretty specific about homosexuality being sinful.

a reply to: JohnFisher

Okay, I won't argue that there is some text in the bible about Homosexuality, that's a topic for another thread. But even with that granted, why then would that be reason for states to ban homosexual marriage? That would be a pretty clear violation of the 1st, actually. Considering the language of the first amendment begins with "Congress shall make no law"

By outlawing gay marriage, they HAVE made a law which is entirely religious in nature.

a reply to: JohnFisher

From source number three in my last post:

4. In Romans 1, Paul addresses the origin and consequences of idolatry within the Gentile nation. As 'the pagan' Gentiles gave themselves up to idolatry, in turn God gave them up to same sex passions and acts as a penalty for their idolatry. The entire chapter is devoted to the progression of their sinful state beginning with idolatry and leading to a people filled with all wicknedess who were ruthless, faithless, murderous, malicious and God-haters. Romans 1 doesn't apply to GLBTQ people individually nor as a group and to remove Romans 1:24-28 from the context of the entire chapter in an attempt to make a case against homosexuality comes at the cost of dishonoring the Biblical text.

And here is a larger breakdown about that chapter:

Romans 1: Read the Whole Chapter Kiddo

Like I said, for every source you can find that argues against gays, I can find one that argues for it. Like I said, it's an apostate interpretation that was wrong, just like you claimed about the one on interracial marriage. It's just a shame that you won't claim that during your lifetime. Your kids may though. Since they will grow up with gay marriage being ok and it not being ok to discriminate against them. Just like it is the case for black people.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: JohnFisher

Okay, I won't argue that there is some text in the bible about Homosexuality, that's a topic for another thread. But even with that granted, why then would that be reason for states to ban homosexual marriage? That would be a pretty clear violation of the 1st, actually. Considering the language of the first amendment begins with "Congress shall make no law"

By outlawing gay marriage, they HAVE made a law which is entirely religious in nature.

I'm not arguing that point. I have no significant or strong disagreements there. Really, my only strong point is that we need to be cautious that this doesn't wind up infringing on religious liberties as well. You know how irrational society gets. I think we all know how often our government disregard the constitution. I'm not saying it will result in the infringement upon religious liberties, and I'm not saying the legalization of same-sex marriage already has done that. I'm saying that we're a nation that likes everything hard and fast, and we tend to get carried away ignore the constitution... on both sides of the political spectrum. That's all.

a reply to: JohnFisher

Then you should be celebrating this ruling, not lamenting it. Because this ruling is fixing where a bunch of Republican states violated the Constitution.

1. The bible is a work of fiction written by men.
2. The SCOTUS made the right decision.
3. Well there is no 3.... 1 & 2 pretty much covered it.

I thought people want freedom?

Oh, but I guess it's a very specific kind of freedom, a freedom that comes from a religious, right-wing Christian agenda.

So, freedom for Christians, but not everyone else. They're not allowed to have the freedom to marry, because...well -- it's disgusting and a sin!

Religion should be free to practice in your homes, churches, hearts and minds. Your religion should not trump mine, and mine shouldn't trump yours. Religion has no place in politics or schools -- as these institutions that serve us all, and all of us have different faiths. Public institutions should be neutral.

This isn't a Christian nation, and the Christians don't "own" the word or institution of marriage. My God, Zeus says gays can marry -- he told me himself. So there. People have been getting "married" in other religions for eons.

So lets get rid of marriage altogether in the government! Yeah!

Well, I guess that means I can't ever move to another country. I hope if go on vacation to England I don't get sick or get into legal trouble. My "non-government sanctioned spouse" won't be able to help me as a married spouse could.

Let's keep people locked inside America, ignorant to the outside world! Isolationism is great! Let's bury our head in the sand and take backward steps while the rest of the industrialized democracies of the world keep moving forward, leaving us behind!

So if you want freedom in America, you have to be Christian. Got it.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: JohnFisher

From source number three in my last post:

4. In Romans 1, Paul addresses the origin and consequences of idolatry within the Gentile nation. As 'the pagan' Gentiles gave themselves up to idolatry, in turn God gave them up to same sex passions and acts as a penalty for their idolatry. The entire chapter is devoted to the progression of their sinful state beginning with idolatry and leading to a people filled with all wicknedess who were ruthless, faithless, murderous, malicious and God-haters. Romans 1 doesn't apply to GLBTQ people individually nor as a group and to remove Romans 1:24-28 from the context of the entire chapter in an attempt to make a case against homosexuality comes at the cost of dishonoring the Biblical text.

And here is a larger breakdown about that chapter:

Romans 1: Read the Whole Chapter Kiddo

Like I said, for every source you can find that argues against gays, I can find one that argues for it. Like I said, it's an apostate interpretation that was wrong, just like you claimed about the one on interracial marriage. It's just a shame that you won't claim that during your lifetime. Your kids may though. Since they will grow up with gay marriage being ok and it not being ok to discriminate against them. Just like it is the case for black people.

Nah, I've studied it quite well. I'll challenge you this, read not the whole chapter; read the whole book. I take to heart Roman 2 as well. bit it definitely is clear about this issue.

a reply to: JohnFisher

That is moving the goal posts. You said Romans 1, then I rebuked your source with my own source that explains quite clearly that there is more going on in that chapter that is an affront to god than homosexuality and it is really a compounding of a great many things and not just the one. Now, because that is rebuked, you move on to Romans 2. Just admit you were wrong for once...

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: JohnFisher

That is moving the goal posts. You said Romans 1, then I rebuked your source with my own source that explains quite clearly that there is more going on in that chapter that is an affront to god than homosexuality and it is really a compounding of a great many things and not just the one. Now, because that is rebuked, you move on to Romans 2. Just admit you were wrong for once...

NNo, it isn't rebuked. Well, not effectively. There is much, much more. Jesus reaffirmed God's plan for marriage when replying to a question about divorce.

originally posted by: JohnFisher
Really, my only strong point is that we need to be cautious that this doesn't wind up infringing on religious liberties as well.

I've heard this in several places... Can you tell me... In what way might two gay people getting married infringe on someone's freedom to practice their religion? Do you have an example? Because I'm not understanding what people mean when they say this...

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...........


I shall attend back to my quarters.........much strife and upheaval is coming.....

a reply to: JohnFisher

See. There's the thing, we can go back and forth all day on this topic and at the end of the day neither of us will be convinced. Just like every other bible interpretation in the world. Hence why this ruling was a good thing. Get religion out of the government.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

He's using the "Dangerous Precedent" argument, saying this ruling is one of many that could come down in future which slowly whittle down your rights.

a reply to: JohnFisher

Jesus reaffirmed God's plan for marriage when replying to a question about divorce.

Jesus also reaffirmed God's plan for marriage in the parable about the 10 virgins awaiting their one bridegroom. According to Jesus, one could argue that polygamy is God's plan for marriage.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Religious Freedom just not for other Religions.. i always wonder what happens when someone starts a religion that is against Heterosexual Marriage.. how would that sit?

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

He's using the "Dangerous Precedent" argument, saying this ruling is one of many that could come down in future which slowly whittle down your rights.

NNo, I'm pointing out that the people of our country tend to take things too far, and our government has a tendency to completely disregard constitutional liberties. I'm saying that this has potential become what many movements have.in the past in our own country and around the world.

I've said it a gazillion-billion times:

Conservative Christians are scared. They are used to having a monopoly on policy in this country. They are used to having their boys in political office that can shape policy.

They're scared. Religion is being systematically removed from government. This is how it was supposed to be and how it should be.

Like anyone who is scared, crazy accusations and grand hypothetical situations are being thrown about.

In 50 years, history will be much kinder to the people that supported gay marriage, and the people will think the opposition crazy for making such a big stink. It'll be much better documented than when interracial marriage happened because of the internet.

Isn't there something in the Bible about interracial marriage? Do we want to reverse that SCOTUS decision as well? I doubt anyone will take on that question though.

a reply to: JohnFisher

How about The Netherlands the first Country to allow same-Sex Marriage, they have a lot of Freedoms, Tolerant etc