SCOTUS legalizes Gay Marriage - 10th Amendment Obliterated

[Sola_Fide]

Polygamous and incestual relations are Biblical and sanctioned by God. Gay marriages are not.

Where does God "sanction" either of those? Verse please.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I'm all for gay marriage. The gays have the same right to be just as unhappy and miserable as many of the rest of us.

Wow, haven't heard that one before. /s

 

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

But I guess that is cool with you

Guess again, jackass.

 

[RabbitMan]

It seems a third of posters here are against Gay Marriage on a religious basis, a third of posters here are against Marriage Licensing altogether on a libertarian basis and a third of posters here are happy that our friends can now enjoy the equal privileges under the law we have been allowed our entire lives.

Let's agree to disagree, as social issues are divisive and not a one of us are going to be willing to budge on this issue.

It is pretty clear to me that this discussion is going nowhere, and I feel this thread should be locked.

I've spoken my peace, I'll see you guys and gals in other parts of the forum where we can come together United and not simply cannabalize ourselves.

 

[roho76]

Yea, just as much as heterosexual marriage is a subsidy on heterosexual couples and a tax on homosexual couples. And states ending marriage of all kinds would be an end to all subsidies which is a good thing. Govts shouldn't be in the business of promoting or discouraging civil unions.

I'm not arguing that. And the last part, I agree with. I'm still curious if this is a "I want my cake and eat it too" kind of retaliation from liberals to conservatives.

 

[Ender]

Where does God "sanction" either of those? Verse please.

A friend of a friend wrote this on FB- surely you will find the verses interesting:

Okay so, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance.
When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

BUT ALSO

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

Maybe we should just start practicing the 2 Great Commandments and Love God & our Neighbors.

Let them live their lives and we live ours.

 

[wizardwatson]

Whatever, people who believe this. Even Rand is against it.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/Rand_Paul_Civil_Rights.htm

My guess is thought that his political response will be to mention that it should be state's rights and completely omit any notion that it's "the nucleus", etc.

Just guessing on past behavior though. He might surprise and mention that this is going to cause more problems like he said before, or disappoint by celebrating with them.

I posted the above and was pretty much correct in what I thought Rand would say in his Time Op-Ed here:

http://time.com/3939374/rand-paul-gay-marriage-supreme-court/

On the libertarian/Constitution angle though I do think it was an excellent response, and I posted this on the related "Rand Paul Forum" thread with this:

I've been criticized for coming down too hard on Rand. Personally, I don't think one can come down too hard on anyone regarding the truth as long as they are ready to accept the same treatment.

Rand's response was in line with what I predicted in this post here on Friday. Heavy on the "state's rights" light on the "it's the nucleus of civilization" stuff that he's posted/said elsewhere.

But he is running for office, yeeeeeees, I get that.

But this was a good thorough response. He did nail the key issues.

And I would like to commend him for mentioning more than once the KEY, KEY issue. The Federal government REDEFINED MARRIAGE. SCOTUS unilaterally changed the definition of every state that didn't want them too including the state of Kansas where I live and where we altered our Constitution to state our definition of marriage which was the ancient biblical one.

So count this as my effort to "support" Rand (today . I'm kind of a cantankerous individual when it comes to, as Chris Rock would say, "giving credit to people for shit their supposed to do" like politicians, but I'll give it to Rand here since he hit all the key issues and it is the kind of response I would expect from an elected official charged with defending our Constitution. As someone who openly admits struggling with their faith he even managed to slip God into the discussion. So again, on that angle, though of course I'm open to more of that, I think he did what he could on that front.

I too was tempted to post and get on him for not responding in less than a day (many here apparently couldn't wait) like he did with Obamacare, but I do think in this case it was because it meant more to him than Obamacare and not less, and therefore he wanted all his ducks in a row.

I still don't see the solution out of this.

I mean, I don't think we'll SURVIVE this on biblical grounds, but apart from that, Kansas has tried to outlaw certain types of abortion and keep marriage the way we want it and SCOTUS and outside lawyers just do what they want. What is the solution?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

It seems a third of posters here are against Gay Marriage on a religious basis, a third of posters here are against Marriage Licensing altogether on a libertarian basis and a third of posters here are happy that our friends can now enjoy the equal privileges under the law we have been allowed our entire lives.

Let's agree to disagree, as social issues are divisive and not a one of us are going to be willing to budge on this issue.

It is pretty clear to me that this discussion is going nowhere, and I feel this thread should be locked.

I've spoken my peace, I'll see you guys and gals in other parts of the forum where we can come together United and not simply cannabalize ourselves.

If "not a one" of us were willing to budge on this issue, then what issues are we willing to budge on? What issue is anyone willing to budge on, for that matter? If discourse is useless here, then it's useless everywhere and we should stop trying to propagate liberty.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

A friend of a friend wrote this on FB- surely you will find the verses interesting:



Maybe we should just start practicing the 2 Great Commandments and Love God & our Neighbors.

Let them live their lives and we live ours.

And we do. Just because we express our opinion on what we believe to be right vs. wrong, that doesn't mean we don't let them live their lives, and it doesn't mean we don't love them.

 

[Terry1]

A friend of a friend wrote this on FB- surely you will find the verses interesting:



Maybe we should just start practicing the 2 Great Commandments and Love God & our Neighbors.

Let them live their lives and we live ours.

I absolutely agree that we are to love them--not judge or persecute them--that is not our purpose as Christians and many Christians fail to understand this and do judge others harshly and persecute them. This is not what Jesus our Lord intended. We are only suppose to show them love and give the message of that same love and life in our Lord and bring them into that same covenant of faith and love just the same. We are to embrace them with kindness being examples of that same love as well---which is mercy--not judgment.

Many Christians do the body of Christ more harm than good in their persecutions and judgments of unbelievers---and this is not how Jesus taught us to witness. Jesus befriended and sat with the prostitutes, drunks and sinners and to the dismay of His own disciples--whom Jesus rebuked and corrected them, saying that He came not for the righteous, but to bring sinners to repentance and eternal life. The ultimate expression of love was when Jesus laid down and gave His own life for these same sinners as we all are. This is our true witness and purpose in this life--to be examples of that very same love and never to judge--that is God's job.\

Our purpose as believers and witnesses of Christ is to sow seeds of love and give that message with affection, kindness and mercy. If they don't listen--we walk away in peace and leave them to God.

 

[Sola_Fide]

A friend of a friend wrote this on FB- surely you will find the verses interesting:



Maybe we should just start practicing the 2 Great Commandments and Love God & our Neighbors.

Let them live their lives and we live ours.

It's a ridiculous post which has nothing to do with what we are talking about and shows a ignorance of the Bible. Homosexuality is against the abiding moral law. But the verses he talks about after that are the civil law that applied to the nation of Israel only.

 

[Ender]

I absolutely agree that we are to love them--not judge or persecute them--that is not our purpose as Christians and many Christians fail to understand this and do judge others harshly and persecute them. This is not what Jesus our Lord intended. We are only suppose to show them love and give the message of that same love and life in our Lord and bring them into that same covenant of faith and love just the same. We are to embrace them with kindness being examples of that same love as well---which is mercy--not judgment.

Many Christians do the body of Christ more harm than good in their persecutions and judgments of unbelievers---and this is not how Jesus taught us to witness. Jesus befriended and sat with the prostitutes, drunks and sinners and to the dismay of His own disciples--whom Jesus rebuked and corrected them, saying that He came not for the righteous, but to bring sinners to repentance and eternal life. The ultimate expression of love was when Jesus laid down and gave His own life for these same sinners as we all are. This is our true witness and purpose in this life--to be examples of that very same love and never to judge--that is God's job.\

Our purpose as believers and witnesses of Christ is to sow seeds of love and give that message with affection, kindness and mercy. If they don't listen--we walk away in peace and leave them to God.

My Kind of Christian.

Thank you Terry1!

And I'm outta +reps for you.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

I mean, I don't think we'll SURVIVE this on biblical grounds, but apart from that, Kansas has tried to outlaw certain types of abortion and keep marriage the way we want it and SCOTUS and outside lawyers just do what they want. What is the solution?

Nullification! An intro:

http://tomwoods.com/books/nullification/

"It's Happening":

In Texas, the state's Attorney General is inviting, really encouraging, public officials to defy last week's Supreme Court ruling legalizing marriage for same sex couples across the United States. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is telling country clerks they may refuse to issue marriage licenses if they believe same sex marriages violate their religious beliefs.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/one-person-one-nullification

 

[tod evans]

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton

Isn't this the same dude responsible for locking up 160 bikers?

And murdering 9 others?

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Isn't this the same dude responsible for locking up 160 bikers?

And murdering 9 others?

Probably, I have no idea.

Nevertheless, poking the Feds in the eye is always a sure way to warm my heart.

 

[tod evans]

Probably, I have no idea.

Nevertheless, poking the Feds in the eye is always a sure way to warm my heart.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend....

I'm glad to see it too, I just wish more private citizens would stand up instead of relying on government officials to do the standing for them........

 

[ChiefJustice]

This thread and forum just goes to show that the Liberty Movement is dead before it got rolling. Gay marriage should be legal nation wide. You can argue about the Supreme Court and states rights all you want but what should truly matter to those standing for liberty is equal rights regardless of race, gender or sexuality. The lamenting in this thread is pathetic. The vast majority of America supports the right of gays to marry. If the so called liberty movement wants to go in the other (and incorrect) way so be it. The echoes of a dead movement will be but a minor footnote in 21st century politics :-(

 

[Sonny Tufts]

In Texas, the state's Attorney General is inviting, really encouraging, public officials to defy last week's Supreme Court ruling legalizing marriage for same sex couples across the United States. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is telling country clerks they may refuse to issue marriage licenses if they believe same sex marriages violate their religious beliefs.

In the true spirit of Orville Faubus and George Wallace.

 

[Sola_Fide]

This thread and forum just goes to show that the Liberty Movement is dead before it got rolling.

What you say here doesn't represent the liberty movement at all, so I can see why you may want to think it is "dead".

Gay marriage should be legal nation wide.

Every kind of contractual relationship should be "legal", that is the point. It is not the government's prerogative to interpose on private contracts or regulate them at all. That is the problem with marriage today and that is the problem with your argument. You don't have a worldview that stands for freedom.

You can argue about the Supreme Court and states rights all you want but what should truly matter to those standing for liberty is equal rights regardless of race, gender or sexuality.

No. People who stand for liberty do not stand for rights that come from the ever growing number of government endorsed groups. That is collectivism, not liberty. Liberty is individualistic.

The lamenting in this thread is pathetic. The vast majority of America supports the right of gays to marry.

That is just unquestionably inaccurate. Even if it wasn't inaccurate, rights don't come from the fact that a majority think they exist. Even if a majority of people think that they have a right to the fruits of my labor, they would still be wrong, because theft is wrong, and coercive organized theft is wrong.

If the so called liberty movement wants to go in the other (and incorrect) way so be it. The echoes of a dead movement will be but a minor footnote in 21st century politics :-(

What way are you talking about? In the direction of freedom from government? That is the "incorrect" way to you? Maybe you are on the wrong website.

 

[wizardwatson]

This thread and forum just goes to show that the Liberty Movement is dead before it got rolling. Gay marriage should be legal nation wide. You can argue about the Supreme Court and states rights all you want but what should truly matter to those standing for liberty is equal rights regardless of race, gender or sexuality. The lamenting in this thread is pathetic. The vast majority of America supports the right of gays to marry. If the so called liberty movement wants to go in the other (and incorrect) way so be it. The echoes of a dead movement will be but a minor footnote in 21st century politics :-(

Yes, yes, I'm wrong and you are right. Except I can explain why you're wrong and you can't explain why you're right except to use the "equal rights" catch phrase without referencing the laws which back it up.

But go celebrate. Enjoy worshipping the God of political correctness and the "equality" of lawlessness before the law.