Marriage Equality Ruling

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

I never said it did?

 

Jesus didn't curse nations or cities with physical punishments that occurred immediately. The only thing I can think of is the prophecy of the Temple being destroyed. He talked about how it would be better for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for some people in Jerusalem, but that's not really "judging them." At least not yet.

 

Chorazin, Bethsaida, Capernaum?

 

Edit, nvm, I totally missed the last part of your post. Lol. But still that is exactly what the people who tweet the stuff that F4E posted on the first page are afraid of. I haven't seen anyone on social media talking about God destroying America, or smiting America. But I have seen many talk about fear of God judging America unfovarobaly (like the tweet F4E posted). Jesus DID judge nations, as well as God judged nations in the OT. Therfor for some to think that God may curse the US for it's decisions to get further and further from the Bible is not farfetched.

Edited June 29, 2015 by DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F

[Thanatos 2,847]

Jesus never judged any nation except for Israel. To say that God is going to judge the US when he hasn't judged, say, North Korea, or Iran is to demonstrate the arrogant belief that the US is somehow a chosen nation of God's and is more important than those other guys.

Edited June 29, 2015 by Thanatos19

[Bucman 891]

Fuck why is Canada still around? They've had gay marriage for a decade already.

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

Well, Christians don't know God's plan for each nations, so excuse them for praying to their God to not look at their personal nation unfavorably from getting further from his word.

[Thanatos 2,847]

The point is, why would he judge the US when we are far more of a "Christian" nation than Iran or North Korea, or Saudi Arabia or any one of a dozen other nations who routinely commit atrocities in the name of religion, stone people of any faith other than Islam, and keep women in the dark ages. If God hasn't judged those nations, then why the fuck would he judge the US for allowing gay marriage? All of Europe and Canada has gay marriage. Ireland just voted for it publicly. All of those nations also have abortion. They've had both those things for a long time. God hasn't judged them.

 

What you are suggesting is that the US is more important than those nations. This is an actual belief among Christians, they think that America took the place of Israel for God's covenant promises; their reasoning being basically that we're powerful and important and we were founded on Christian principles.

 

To suggest that God would now judge the US, when he hadn't before, because of legally allowing something that dozens of other nations have allowed for years, and especially when regimes like Iran or North Korea are allowed to do their thing unchecked is quite simply ridiculous.

 

If there is a God, then he clearly no longer judges nations. If he does suddenly decide to judge the US on this, when he has allowed all those other nations to go unpunished, then that seems ridiculously unjust to me.

 

The United States is not God's chosen nation. America is not Israel. And the far right doomsayers that are now fearmongering and claiming that God's wrath will be brought down on the US because "teh gays can get married!!!" should rightfully be laughed out of town. They're no less idiotic than the homeless guy on the street with the "Repent, for the End is Near" sign.

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

The point is, why would he judge the US when we are far more of a "Christian" nation than Iran or North Korea, or Saudi Arabia or any one of a dozen other nations who routinely commit atrocities in the name of religion, stone people of any faith other than Islam, and keep women in the dark ages. If God hasn't judged those nations, then why the fuck would he judge the US for allowing gay marriage? All of Europe and Canada has gay marriage. Ireland just voted for it publicly. All of those nations also have abortion. They've had both those things for a long time. God hasn't judged them.

What you are suggesting is that the US is more important than those nations. This is an actual belief among Christians, they think that America took the place of Israel for God's covenant promises; their reasoning being basically that we're powerful and important and we were founded on Christian principles.

 

No, what I'm suggesting is that there's nothing wrong with AMERICANS praying that God would not judge AMERICA unfavorably.

 

We aren't talking about Canada, etc, etc, etc, we are talking about America.

 

 

To suggest that God would now judge the US, when he hadn't before, because of legally allowing something that dozens of other nations have allowed for years, and especially when regimes like Iran or North Korea are allowed to do their thing unchecked is quite simply ridiculous.

If there is a God, then he clearly no longer judges nations. If he does suddenly decide to judge the US on this, when he has allowed all those other nations to go unpunished, then that seems ridiculously unjust to me.

The United States is not God's chosen nation. America is not Israel. And the far right doomsayers that are now fearmongering and claiming that God's wrath will be brought down on the US because "teh gays can get married!!!" should rightfully be laughed out of town. They're no less idiotic than the homeless guy on the street with the "Repent, for the End is Near" sign.

 

Nobody suggested God would judge the US. All I said, and all that man said was to pray that God does not judge America unfavorably.

 

Because we don't know God's plan for who, all Christians can do is pray. It's that simple. It's no different then a Christian praying for a multitude of things that they don't know whether or not God will answer.

 

And I'm not talking about domsdayers, I'm not talking about fearmongers, I'm talking about Christians who fear that God will not look favorably upon the US when it's all said and done. And if you think that is the same thing as fearmongering, then this is a pointless conversation.

[Thanatos 2,847]

If you preach in your church that God is going to judge the US because we allowed teh gays to marry, that is fearmongering.

 

If you tell your children that God is going to suddenly look unfavorably at the US because of gay marriage, that is fearmongering.

 

We are not the United States. We are individuals. God doesn't hold the individual to account because of the nation's actions. We aren't some massive cohesive unit.

 

Christians who fear God's wrath because of this simply are illogical. That is the whole point. You have nothing to be afraid of. Saying otherwise is illogical. Telling someone else that is using scare tactics. God judges the individual for the individual's actions, is what I was always taught. He doesn't judge nations, and if he started doing so, he'd be judging a *lot* of other nations before he got to the US.

 

This is all besides the point that the idea that God forced someone to be a certain way and then sends them to hell for doing so is utterly bonkers. That kind of God deserves to be rebelled against.

 

Its also besides the point that we don't run this nation on the Bible, (as my last pastor would say- Amen to that), and for damn good reason. You don't mix religion and government and since the only argument against gay marriage is a religious one, we did the right thing by allowing it.

 

You want to change the rules? We have a way to do that too. It's called a Constitutional Amendment. Good fucking luck getting that passed.

Edited June 30, 2015 by Thanatos19

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

If you preach in your church that God is going to judge the US because we allowed teh gays to marry, that is fearmongering.

 

If you tell your children that God is going to suddenly look unfavorably at the US because of gay marriage, that is fearmongering.

 

We are not the United States. We are individuals. God doesn't hold the individual to account because of the nation's actions. We aren't some massive cohesive unit.

 

Christians who fear God's wrath because of this simply are illogical. That is the whole point. You have nothing to be afraid of. Saying otherwise is illogical. Telling someone else that is using scare tactics. God judges the individual for the individual's actions, is what I was always taught. He doesn't judge nations, and if he started doing so, he'd be judging a *lot* of other nations before he got to the US.

 

This is all besides the point that the idea that God forced someone to be a certain way and then sends them to hell for doing so is utterly bonkers. That kind of God deserves to be rebelled against.

 

Its also besides the point that we don't run this nation on the Bible, (as my last pastor would say- Amen to that), and for damn good reason. You don't mix religion and government and since the only argument against gay marriage is a religious one, we did the right thing by allowing it.

 

You want to change the rules? We have a way to do that too. It's called a Constitutional Amendment. Good fucking luck getting that passed.

 

But who's done that?

 

"I pray God will spare America from His judgment, though, by our actions as a nation, we give Him less and less reason to do so"

 

Really? That sounds to you like, "EVERYBODY WE'RE DOOMED!! GOD IS GONNA KILL US BECAUSE WE SUPPORT GAYS"?

 

C'mon son. All he's saying that with every decision that's being made by the government that is further and further less moral. It's that simple. I'm not over here talking about the crazy "Christians" who claim the world is coming to an end because gay people can all the sudden get married. I'm talking about the Christians who think that as the Supreme Court, etc make more rulings that's further from the Bible, they are opening the door for God's judgement.

 

And you can disagree with them all you want (heck, I don't agree with them, I already said that page 2), but God judged nations in the Bible, Jesus judged nations (doesn't matter if it was one or a million, he still did) in the NT. And nobody knows what God's plan is for anyone. Therefore it's not stupid, or nonsensical for some Christians to think that God might eventually do the same to America.

Edited June 30, 2015 by DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F

[Thanatos 2,847]

... Um yes?

 

He just said, when translated from religious-speak:

 

"Having gay marriage be legal makes God more likely to judge the United States."

 

No, it doesn't. Period. If the killing of millions of unborn children for the past forty years did not bring God's wrath down on the United States, then allowing people to marry the person they love regardless of gender sure as hell isn't going to. If Iran can execute Christians, if North Korea can be a regime of terror, if Vladimir Putin can have his rivals assassinated in broad daylight and run Russia as a terrible dictator, and none of those nations have been judged by God, then the US having gay marriage isn't going to get us judged either- unless the US is more important to God. This is what this all comes back to, the theology that America is a chosen nation and has replaced Israel in part or in full.

Edited June 30, 2015 by Thanatos19

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

... Um yes?

 

He just said, when translated from religious-speak:

 

"Having gay marriage be legal makes God more likely to judge the United States."

 

No, it doesn't. Period. If the killing of millions of unborn children for the past forty years did not bring God's wrath down on the United States, then allowing people to marry the person they love regardless of gender sure as hell isn't going to. If Iran can execute Christians, if North Korea can be a regime of terror, if Vladimir Putin can have his rivals assassinated in broad daylight and run Russia as a terrible dictator, and none of those nations have been judged by God, then the US having gay marriage isn't going to get us judged either- unless the US is more important to God. This is what this all comes back to, the theology that America is a chosen nation and has replaced Israel in part or in full.

 

And, apparently God now works under human timeline and under human agenda. Our "if, then" scenarios applies to God.

[oochymp 2,393]

Montana man seeks license for second wife

Last Updated Jul 1, 2015 10:44 PM EDT

HELENA, Mont. - A Montana man said Wednesday that he was inspired by last week's U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage to apply for a marriage license so that he can legally wed his second wife.

Nathan Collier and his wives Victoria and Christine applied at the Yellowstone County Courthouse in Billings on Tuesday in an attempt to legitimize their polygamous marriage. Montana, like all 50 states, outlaws bigamy - holding multiple marriage licenses - but Collier said he plans to sue if the application is denied.

"It's about marriage equality," Collier told The Associated Press Wednesday. "You can't have this without polygamy."

 

Montana man seeks license for second wife - CBS News

slippery slope here we come

 

but to be serious, I'm sure this'll be rejected quickly

[Thanatos 2,847]

Why? This is the obvious next step. It's going to happen and its as inevitable as gay marriage.

 

There is also no real argument against polygamy except a religious one, so long as all three or more parties are consenting adults- with the minor caveat of the extra paperwork and legalese required for more than two people.

Edited July 2, 2015 by Thanatos19

[blotsfan 2,112]

Nah, no polygamy.

[oochymp 2,393]

Why? This is the obvious next step. It's going to happen and its as inevitable as gay marriage.

 

There is also no real argument against polygamy except a religious one, so long as all three or more parties are consenting adults- with the minor caveat of the extra paperwork and legalese required for more than two people.

I disagree, there's a huge difference between the state limiting who can enter into a legally recognized relationship based on the sex of the individuals and the state limiting the number of people who can enter into a legally recognized relationship, polygamous marriage really is a much larger jump than same-sex marriage

[OSUViking 505]

My five cents:

 

*It's a shame that people try to use "marriage is a religious institution" as an argument still. I mean, if you don't adhere to the Bible as a historical document, then there is plenty of evidence that the concept of a man and woman living together has existed prior to recorded religion. It's just ridiculous that people can still look at history through the small eyeglass of the Bible.

 

*I fully support this ruling, and I'm very disappointed at the negative backlash. I had a gay roommate last year in college, and my other roommates and I texted him "Congratulations on the rights" as a joke. He received it well.

 

*Now that gay marriage is out of the way, I think that people will campaign for polygamy next. I'm not even sure if polygamy is illegal, but I've seen people debating over it on social media. I also know a girl (who is notorious for going to the extremes of social liberalism) advocating legalization of incest. What's TGP's take on that?

[oochymp 2,393]

*It's a shame that people try to use "marriage is a religious institution" as an argument still. I mean, if you don't adhere to the Bible as a historical document, then there is plenty of evidence that the concept of a man and woman living together has existed prior to recorded religion. It's just ridiculous that people can still look at history through the small eyeglass of the Bible.

 

*Now that gay marriage is out of the way, I think that people will campaign for polygamy next. I'm not even sure if polygamy is illegal, but I've seen people debating over it on social media. I also know a girl (who is notorious for going to the extremes of social liberalism) advocating legalization of incest. What's TGP's take on that?

just wanted to address these two points:

 

the first point I'm with you on, I would just add that the marriage as a religious institution is a valid reason for a church to refuse to host gay weddings, but it has absolutely no bearing on the discussion of the legal definition of marriage

 

 

on the last point, yes, polygamy is still illegal in most (if not all, I'm pretty sure all but I'm not looking it up right now) states, it'll be interesting to see how this challenge goes because to me it's a much bigger jump to change the number of participants allowed in a marriage than it is to change the required gender of the participants, but the way this ruling was worded it will be a challenge to cabin the ruling so that it doesn't apply to polygamous marriages

[OSUViking 505]

just wanted to address these two points:

 

the first point I'm with you on, I would just add that the marriage as a religious institution is a valid reason for a church to refuse to host gay weddings, but it has absolutely no bearing on the discussion of the legal definition of marriage

 

 

on the last point, yes, polygamy is still illegal in most (if not all, I'm pretty sure all but I'm not looking it up right now) states, it'll be interesting to see how this challenge goes because to me it's a much bigger jump to change the number of participants allowed in a marriage than it is to change the required gender of the participants, but the way this ruling was worded it will be a challenge to cabin the ruling so that it doesn't apply to polygamous marriages

 

1) Yeah, I probably should have added in that I believe Holy Matrimony and any other religious equivalents to be religious institutions. Churches should not be forced to allow or recognize gay marriage, but of course that doesn't get to apply to national standards, where supposedly we're secular.

 

2) It seems odd that polygamy is banned. I mean, growing up there was always that taboo subject of talking about gays and stuff, but you grew out of it (at least, most of us did). I've never thought anything wrong of polygamy. In fact, one of the first times I was exposed to polygamy was on Family Guy, and honestly I didn't even think anything by it. Can't believe it's banned. Also, I'm a bit confused by your last sentence. Are you saying this ruling will make it easier or harder for polygamy to become a thing?

[oochymp 2,393]

Also, I'm a bit confused by your last sentence. Are you saying this ruling will make it easier or harder for polygamy to become a thing?

Sorry if that was confusing, I think the ruling makes it easier to argue for polygamy even though I think it's a significantly further shift in the definition of marriage than same sex marriage is

[blotsfan 2,112]

And polygamy can lead to some fucked up changes and awful situations.

[Thanatos 2,847]

And polygamy can lead to some fucked up changes and awful situations.

 

Not if all three adults are consenting adults.

 

Now incest can, even if they are.

[blotsfan 2,112]

How would divorce work if there was 1 man with 5 wives. Assuming the man is the sole provider (seems likely in a scenario like this), does that mean the woman who wants a divorce only gets 1/6th instead of 1/2? Or if she does get 1/2, then the other wives dont have enough.

[theMileHighGuy 656]

The only thing I honestly have against marriages with 3+ party members is taxes and other benefits that come with marriage. There's nothing stopping 10 people from getting married and enjoying those breaks, and if they have another friend who wants on, add him too. Then they can all fire out kids independently and get a ton of child tax credits.

 

The only way for it to be 'fair' where no one could say anything is to reformat the deduction system all together, and I really doubt that happens.

 

But just the base point of if I think 3 people should be able to civil union? Yeah, I don't really care. Marry your fuckin dog as far as I'm concerned.

[Sarge+ 3,436]

I think marijuana will follow a similar path, as it should.

 

http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/dea-admits-marijuana-definitely-safer-heroin

 

Nothing solid in the courts yet, but this is just one more piece in the momentum.

[theMileHighGuy 656]

 

http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/dea-admits-marijuana-definitely-safer-heroin

 

Nothing solid in the courts yet, but this is just one more piece in the momentum.

 

I found the title of that article genuinely hilarious.

[Thanatos 2,847]

I've reversed on marijuana recently. We need more studies that actually are able to measure its impact. It may be even more cancer-causing than cigarettes, for starters.

 

Before we legalize it for recreational usage, we need a lot more actual facts about it.