Roberts Warns Churches Could Lose Tax-Exempt Status For Opposing Gay Marriage

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Wrong. The Bible addressed what was a common practice of the time, but what is promoted as right is one man, one woman.

Does that not make it more fitting of the term 'traditional' that the 'Ozzie and Harriet' concept that didn't come into vogue until the second half of the 20th century? 'Ozzie and Harriet' is new fangled, radical, even feminist. How on earth is that 'traditional' after 1000 years of 'Me Tarzan, You Jane'?

I watched an old "I Love Lucy" episode the other day. Lucy wanted to try cutting her hair short, in the 'new' Italian style. When she put the idea to Ricky he said "absolutely not". Not "I don't think that would look good on you" or "try it, if its no good you can wear a wig till it grows out" or anything like that. He is the husband, she is the wife. He is the boss, and she will wear her hair the way he wants it, end of story. Shoot, even Harriet would tell Ozzie where he could put that idea.

I am not having a discussion about traditional marriage based on a fictional television show. Try reality.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Blimey it really is like if Germany still had people defending the swastika.
Like krazy said it isn't even the right flag.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I've read plenty of history books, and the picture I get from that declaration is that it is just anecdotal evidence cherry-picked form civilizations that fell due to falling into decadence. There are COUNTLESS examples of civilizations that had slipping morals and survived for some time.

Name a nation that didn't fall, after some period of time, when it fell into moral decay. It can happen sooner or later, but it does happen. How fast depends on other factors. The degree of "slipping" is also a factor. A little, and a strong nation can survive. A lot, and even a strong nation will eventually falter, and fall, if some correction doesn't take place. There are sound reasons that nations have moral laws.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Well if it doesn't happen immediately, you can just as easily attribute the fall to other consequences as well. It's easy to sit back and say, "all societies with slipping morals are destined for ruin" when you give an infinite timeframe for when they fall apart. You've literally crafted an argument that can't be wrong. Though you haven't defined what "slipping morals" even is and means. The Romans and Greeks used to practice homosexuality and various other things that Christians considered VERY immoral, but they both had civilizations that lasted for centuries practicing those morals.

For one, nothing lasts forever. So it is inevitable that the country will eventually fall apart. For two, if it was an empire, that doesn't necessarily mean that it is gone from the face of the earth either. America could just as easily fall out of global dominance but still stay a country just as easily.

In other words, blaming societal collapse on decaying morals is the easy way out. It may be linked somewhat, but there are ALWAYS a myriad of reasons why a society falls apart or sticks together. Many of the time, those reasons are linked entirely to luck.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

No, I stated quite plainly that the Bible addressed social norms of the day, which, at some points, included people having multiple wives.

So you are admitting that traditional marriage include at least 6 complex relationship structures beyond the simple one man one woman.

Fine. Now we are getting somewhere.

However, it is stated plainly later that one wife is the preferred number, not several. Reading comprehension matters.

Where does it say that one wife is the preferred number? And where does it say that one husband is the preferred number? What I find is Biblical Prophets and Heros in marital relationships that are almost never one man/one woman. Over and over and over, and not once, ever, are these arrangements declared unlawful or immoral or undesirable. On the contrary, the law, Gods law, is quite clear: these marriage arrangements are approved and regulated.

And nowhere in the Bible, NOWHERE, are loving homosexual relationships condemned.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Try reading some history books.

The information is all over the place.

I've read plenty of history books, and the picture I get from that declaration is that it is just anecdotal evidence cherry-picked form civilizations that fell due to falling into decadence. There are COUNTLESS examples of civilizations that had slipping morals and survived for some time.

"For some time" being the key. They did eventually fall.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Blimey it really is like if Germany still had people defending the swastika.
Like krazy said it isn't even the right flag.

"The right flag" for what? Seems pretty effective for my purposes.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Well if it doesn't happen immediately, you can just as easily attribute the fall to other consequences as well. It's easy to sit back and say, "all societies with slipping morals are destined for ruin" when you give an infinite timeframe for when they fall apart. You've literally crafted an argument that can't be wrong. Though you haven't defined what "slipping morals" even is and means. The Romans and Greeks used to practice homosexuality and various other things that Christians considered VERY immoral, but they both had civilizations that lasted for centuries practicing those morals.

We could argue this back and forth all day, and never agree. Time will tell which of us is right, in the case of this country.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
For one, nothing lasts forever. So it is inevitable that the country will eventually fall apart. For two, if it was an empire, that doesn't necessarily mean that it is gone from the face of the earth either. America could just as easily fall out of global dominance but still stay a country just as easily.

Some things do. Countries tend not to, of course. It's the reasons that are the issue. There, we will simply have to agree to disagree.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
In other words, blaming societal collapse on decaying morals is the easy way out. It may be linked somewhat, but there are ALWAYS a myriad of reasons why a society falls apart or sticks together. Many of the time, those reasons are linked entirely to luck.

Of course there are multiple reasons, but I firmly believe that morals are a very large reason, that affects others, and can speed things up. I agree, though, that it isn't an easy formula.

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

No, I stated quite plainly that the Bible addressed social norms of the day, which, at some points, included people having multiple wives.

So you are admitting that traditional marriage include at least 6 complex relationship structures beyond the simple one man one woman.

No, that isn't at all what I stated. Marriage was set at the beginning, when God placed Adam and Eve together; one man, one woman. There were no laws set for multiple spouses, and when we hear such mentioned, you might note that there were problems which ensued.

originally posted by: rnaa
Where does it say that one wife is the preferred number? And where does it say that one husband is the preferred number? What I find is Biblical Prophets and Heros in marital relationships that are almost never one man/one woman. Over and over and over, and not once, ever, are these arrangements declared unlawful or immoral or undesirable. On the contrary, the law, Gods law, is quite clear: these marriage arrangements are approved and regulated.

Jesus said it Himself. Matthew 18:3-4 - "And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?"

originally posted by: rnaa
And nowhere in the Bible, NOWHERE, are loving homosexual relationships condemned.

Leviticus 18:22 - "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Leviticus 20:13 - " If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 - "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. "

Romans 1:26-28 - "For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. "

1 Timothy 1:10 - "The sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, "


Jude 1:7 - "Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire."

Better rethink that position.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

But you are basing your beliefs from Religion, which is not everyone's belief so it can't be the deciding factor on what is or isn't

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Everything you quoted is from the Bible. Can you honestly not see why using the Bible as a basis for laws is a bad idea? If you justify that, you are simultaneously justifying concepts like Sharia Law and they are equally as valid as your biblical viewpoint.

a reply to: Aazadan

Dammit. The Bible is right. Always! Even when it contradicts itself!

Never mind

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Try reading some history books.

The information is all over the place.

I've read plenty of history books, and the picture I get from that declaration is that it is just anecdotal evidence cherry-picked form civilizations that fell due to falling into decadence. There are COUNTLESS examples of civilizations that had slipping morals and survived for some time.

"For some time" being the key. They did eventually fall.

Well no crap. Everything has to die sometime. Nothing lasts forever.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
They don't HAVE to conform and marry them.
WE still have FREEDOM to worship who and how we want and this won't change.
even the Supreme ct HAS to obey the law and the current admin with be gone soon.
ALL they have to do is take it to court and delay until he's gone.
THEY can have a legal union,they can claim THEIR OWN church but to DEMAND religious organizations comply ?
Good luck with that.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't one rule of the religious belief system "To obey the laws of the land" ? Is this not a law of the land as laid down by the Supreme court? So if the church should refuse to follow that ruling doesn't that violate their own beliefs? I will defend EVERY Americans rights with my last breath. If the church wants to make the same claim then they can't pick and choose. The bottom line is if god made them that way then who are we to judge.

I could quote the Bill Of Rights before my first day of school. It was taught to me by my father. He explained each one in turn, including Freedom of Religion. Then when I started school I was told the same things he told me. Then I read the full version of that bill. Funny thing is that no where in all that time did I see or hear anything that said Freedom of Religion also means freedom to violate the laws they don't like. I also don't recall anything that said going to church gives you the right to violate the rights of others. On the other hand I have heard the quote "Man shall not lay down with man". The trouble is that the word MAN in the Bible refers to human not male. If does mean MALE then what about FEMALE? I can't say I've ever heard any one say "Woman shall not lay down with woman" why not? So if the word MAN means human, as it does in the rest of the Bible, then isn't sex of any kind a sin ? And if it is we're all going to hell anyway and none of it matters in the end.

I don't see this as forcing the issue on the church, but as a reminder to follow, or as they say, practice what you preach and "Judge not lest thou be judged, vengeance is mine say ith the Lord". If being gay is a sin, and it might be I don't know, then it's Gods job to punish them not ours. But I do know that us judging them IS a sin because it says so in that Bible. So I say back off and leave them alone... Also, unless I missed something, no one has said that every church MUST preform same sex weddings, only that they can't oppose or prevent them.

I could go on all day but I won't. The funny thing is that if we are all reading from the same book why is it that beliefs differ from one church to the next ? I understand between religions, but not buildings or preachers of the same religion. In the end all I can do is to fall back on the Bill of Rights that I have followed and defended for 50 years, and none of them gives me the right to infringe on the rights of others.

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

But you are basing your beliefs from Religion, which is not everyone's belief so it can't be the deciding factor on what is or isn't

The welfare of the nation should be the deciding factor, but it wasn't.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Everything you quoted is from the Bible. Can you honestly not see why using the Bible as a basis for laws is a bad idea? If you justify that, you are simultaneously justifying concepts like Sharia Law and they are equally as valid as your biblical viewpoint.

I provided Bible quotes to disprove the claim that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality as a sin. That isn't the same as claiming it should be used as a basis for law.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

What would be the welfare of the nation than?