U.S. Supreme Court upholds right to Marry in all 50 States

[Danmark]

The United States Supreme Court today held: same-sex couples
may exercise the fundamental right to marry in all 50 States.
".... No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies
the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice,
and family. In forming a marital union, two people become
something greater than once they were. As some of
the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage
embodies a love that may endure even past death. It
would misunderstand these men and women to say they
disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do
respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its
fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned
to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilizations
oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the
eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right."

Question for debate: Is this decision, and its rationale, consistent with the teachings of Jesus to be loving, faithful, understanding, and tolerant?

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 1 by Danmark]

I agree with their decision to allow homosexual marriage, but I don't agree with much else. The following is a list of points I don't believe are universally true.

- No union is more profound than marriage
- Marriage embodies [...] love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family
- The highest ideals [are] love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family
- In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 1 by Danmark]

I agree with their decision to allow homosexual marriage, but I don't agree with much else. The following is a list of points I don't believe are universally true.

- No union is more profound than marriage
- Marriage embodies [...] love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family
- The highest ideals [are] love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family
- In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were

I agree. They are not universally true. They are ideals that I suppose are chiefly espoused by, but not limited to, certain religious traditions.

[OpenYourEyes]

[Replying to OpenYourEyes]

If Christians were as worried about divorce, eating shellfish, and wearing fabrics made of two types of cloth as they are about homosexuality, I'd grant them the point that at least they aren't total hypocrites. But as it is, I'll just continue with my curious anti shellfish eating parades.

Haven and Hautey, just so you know why I will not respond to your posts addressed to me...

I can't continue my discussion here because expressing Christian beliefs on the matter can be a violation. Simply saying that Jesus would not tolerate the behavior just as he would not tolerate other sinful offenses, eatting shellfish included, gets me into problems here.

[bluethread]

[Replying to OpenYourEyes]

If Christians were as worried about divorce, eating shellfish, and wearing fabrics made of two types of cloth as they are about homosexuality, I'd grant them the point that at least they aren't total hypocrites. But as it is, I'll just continue with my curious anti shellfish eating parades.

Though I do not take the title of Christian, I thank you for only partially insulting those of us who live a Torah submissive life style. Let me return the favor by saying that I grant that people who recognize the consistency of a Torah submissive lifestyle are not totally ignorant.

[DanieltheDragon]

I kinda want to say I told y'all so. So I'll say it. Told yah :p.

These bans have always been unconstitutional. They are about as constitutional as mandating Catholic Church attendance. No amount of railing on about states rights or the tenth amendment. The states cannot ignore the constitution because they want to.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

A great ruling for freedom lovers everywhere.

Now the battle moves onto those who seek to deny folks their rights 'cause they wear a poly-cotton blend.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 17:

The following is a list of points I don't believe are universally true.
...

I took such to mean that's how the plaintiffs were looking at, like in the context of how that other bunch sought to tell it.

But I do agree if how you read it was correcter'n I did.

[lastcallhall]

Question for debate: Is this decision, and its rationale, consistent with the teachings of Jesus to be loving, faithful, understanding, and tolerant?

[/quote]

The decision has nothing to do with the God of Israel and the Bible. Jesus taught love and respect not acceptance of sin. That is the divide that can never be crossed and is rarely brought up in this debate. I, as an evangelical Christian, believe that a homosexual lifestyle is a sin and the world does not, we can never agree on a middle ground. It is no better or no worse than any other sin but it is different because the person offending is clearly not repentant if they have a partner. Most other sin is done in secret so it is very hard to say something and that's why it seems like Christians talk about this sin more. An example would be is everyone knows me and my wife at our church, if I walked in hugging and kissing another woman I would hope they would ask me to leave because I would be making a mockery of the church and God
As to what Jesus said about who should be married I will give you his words

Matthew 19:4-5New King James Version (NKJV)

4 And He answered and said to them, Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?

It says nothing about leaving your parents for a "partner"

I agree with Mike Huckabee this will not go away as if the choice is the law or God I will follow God. I do not care what society now things is ok or trending, I care what the eternal God will say to me when my short life of hopefully 80+ years is over. I will be faithful to the one that saved my soul not a group of 5 liberal lawyers who have now decided they know better than 6,000 years of history and God. What I find funny is there is a picture of Moses in the court as the acknowledged law giver and if they admit that they must admit that God gave Moses the law and if so God made marriage and they do not have the right to redefine it. A bit ironic IMO.

John 15:18-25New King James Version (NKJV)

The Worlds Hatred

18 If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you. 19 If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. 20 Remember the word that I said to you, A servant is not greater than his master. If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you. If they kept My word, they will keep yours also. 21 But all these things they will do to you for My names sake, because they do not know Him who sent Me. 22 If I had not come and spoken to them, they would have no sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin. 23 He who hates Me hates My Father also. 24 If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would have no sin; but now they have seen and also hated both Me and My Father. 25 But this happened that the word might be fulfilled which is written in their law, They hated Me without a cause.

The debate just like Roe vs Wade will never be settled because a court says it is. As long as there are those that love God more than the world we will have people who will stand up to the "tolerant" liberals

Isaiah 10:1-3New King James Version (NKJV)


10 Woe to those who decree unrighteous decrees,
Who write misfortune,
Which they have prescribed

[Korah]

[Replying to post 24 by lastcallhall]
I almost marked "like" on this post, but throwing in that "6,000 years" ruined it for me because I might look like a Young Earth Creationist. Yes, I quite a philosopher, but for the last 60 years I have just been unable to get my mind around the 6,000 years, don't even start about the seven days!

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 24 by lastcallhall]

So that's a win for us all. As the constitution intended. Everyone is free to believe as they wish and behave as they believe in a fair manner consistent with the law. No longer must some people live oppressed. You get to believe as you wish and others get to believe as they wish and th law is now fair instead of unfair. Glad you got the point.