Republicans Are Too Angry About Gay Marriage

[The Other Castro]

The only sensible response is surrender. It's time to lay down and accept reality. The fight is over, and SSM should be treated as settled law for all eternity. It's sad that SCOTUS has chosen to endorse sin, but it's the way things are and the fact is that the world is not going to end and straight people are not going to be forced to marry gay people. It's time for complete surrender.

Ok, I don't want to go too far down the rabbit hole on this, but what is the scriptural basis for the idea that legalizing sin = endorsing sin?

1 Timothy 5:20 :

As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear.

Voting for a sin-favorable ruling, as 5 justices did here, is the exact opposite of rebuking.

Technically Lawrence v. Texas is the sin-friendly case you're looking for, but the point is mostly moot as anyone that tries to argue in a court of law using the bible as a main defense is a joke.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The only sensible response is surrender. It's time to lay down and accept reality. The fight is over, and SSM should be treated as settled law for all eternity. It's sad that SCOTUS has chosen to endorse sin, but it's the way things are and the fact is that the world is not going to end and straight people are not going to be forced to marry gay people. It's time for complete surrender.

Ok, I don't want to go too far down the rabbit hole on this, but what is the scriptural basis for the idea that legalizing sin = endorsing sin?

1 Timothy 5:20 :

As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear.

Voting for a sin-favorable ruling, as 5 justices did here, is the exact opposite of rebuking.

Technically Lawrence v. Texas is the sin-friendly case you're looking for, but the point is mostly moot as anyone that tries to argue in a court of law using the bible as a main defense is a joke.

The bible must be taken as literal law. Which means that every major city on the planet must be completely destroyed because of Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT.

 Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods.  In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully.  If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock.  Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it.  Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God.  That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt.  Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction.  Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you.  He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors.  "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him."

[The Other Castro]

God sounds a lot like a needy girlfriend.

[pbrower2a]

The only sensible response is surrender. It's time to lay down and accept reality. The fight is over, and SSM should be treated as settled law for all eternity. It's sad that SCOTUS has chosen to endorse sin, but it's the way things are and the fact is that the world is not going to end and straight people are not going to be forced to marry gay people. It's time for complete surrender.

Ok, I don't want to go too far down the rabbit hole on this, but what is the scriptural basis for the idea that legalizing sin = endorsing sin?

1 Timothy 5:20 :

As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear.

Voting for a sin-favorable ruling, as 5 justices did here, is the exact opposite of rebuking.

Technically Lawrence v. Texas is the sin-friendly case you're looking for, but the point is mostly moot as anyone that tries to argue in a court of law using the bible as a main defense is a joke.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Judge not, lest ye be judged.
Love thy neighbor as thyself.
Let he who is without fault cast the first stone.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sins can fit into two categories in the Old Testament. One set of sins consists of those for which the whole of humanity can be judged harshly for commission -- like murder, rape, theft, fraudulent oaths, perversion of justice. These are universally wrong.

The second are sins against Jewish identity. Worshiping 'foreign' gods or creating a graven image of some god indicate that one is no longer Jewish and no longer part of the Jewish community.

[SteveRogers]

The only sensible response is surrender. It's time to lay down and accept reality. The fight is over, and SSM should be treated as settled law for all eternity. It's sad that SCOTUS has chosen to endorse sin, but it's the way things are and the fact is that the world is not going to end and straight people are not going to be forced to marry gay people. It's time for complete surrender.

Ok, I don't want to go too far down the rabbit hole on this, but what is the scriptural basis for the idea that legalizing sin = endorsing sin?

1 Timothy 5:20 :

As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear.

Voting for a sin-favorable ruling, as 5 justices did here, is the exact opposite of rebuking.

What on Earth do you think the word "rebuke" means?

Even if I accept your premises that that passage must be given its most literal interpretation and that homosexuality is a sin, can you really not fathom the concept that one could strongly condemn someone's actions as immoral while simultaneously recognizing their legal right to make a choice as to whether or not to sin?

[CountryClassSF]

I think that the multiple people in this thread, including myself, that have expressed support for traditional marriage have disproved this headline -- the only "angry" that I have seen in this thread is mocking Wulfric for his Christian beliefs. 

[CapoteMonster]

I think that the multiple people in this thread, including myself, that have expressed support for traditional marriage have disproved this headline -- the only "angry" that I have seen in this thread is mocking Wulfric for his Christian beliefs.  

[quote author=CountryClassSF]

The Supreme Court of the country formerly known as the United States of America has overruled God, usurped their authority as impartial jurists, and rewrote three laws this week to match with their ideological crusade.  

It is APPALLING that two justices who are ACTIVELY supporters of the entirety of the gay agenda, and have PERFORMED same-sex weddings, were able to cast a vote today.

There is no hope - it is all over. We no longer have a republic, or even a democracy. We are ruled by black-robed ideological radicals, with support from corporate America, Hollywood, and the "news" media.

I'm afraid that very soon, they will soon go after the churches and start imposing penalties on those who refuse to perform unions they have a moral disagreement with. Justice  Alito warned of pending vilification.[quote]

And not to mention "Homofascist Gay Gestapo will take away OUR marriages next"


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3304515/posts?page=20#20

[CountryClassSF]

Don't talk to me about tolerance when you said nothing as Wulfric was mocked by anti-Christian bigot rhetoric.

I dislike same sex marriage. I don't dislike gays. How do those quotes matter?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The only sensible response is surrender. It's time to lay down and accept reality. The fight is over, and SSM should be treated as settled law for all eternity. It's sad that SCOTUS has chosen to endorse sin, but it's the way things are and the fact is that the world is not going to end and straight people are not going to be forced to marry gay people. It's time for complete surrender.

Ok, I don't want to go too far down the rabbit hole on this, but what is the scriptural basis for the idea that legalizing sin = endorsing sin?

1 Timothy 5:20 :

As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear.

Voting for a sin-favorable ruling, as 5 justices did here, is the exact opposite of rebuking.

You do realize that verse was discussing what a church should do with its members and not with how the church should react to society at large, don't you? Do you really want SCOTUS setting church policies?

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

The only sensible response is surrender. It's time to lay down and accept reality. The fight is over, and SSM should be treated as settled law for all eternity. It's sad that SCOTUS has chosen to endorse sin, but it's the way things are and the fact is that the world is not going to end and straight people are not going to be forced to marry gay people. It's time for complete surrender.

Ok, I don't want to go too far down the rabbit hole on this, but what is the scriptural basis for the idea that legalizing sin = endorsing sin?

1 Timothy 5:20 :

As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear.

Voting for a sin-favorable ruling, as 5 justices did here, is the exact opposite of rebuking.

You do realize that verse was discussing what a church should do with its members and not with how the church should react to society at large, don't you? Do you really want SCOTUS setting church policies?

No, I just don't want them to force change on an insitution mandated by God with the first humans - marriage between a man and a woman.

It's not just an assault on christainity, it's an assault on democracy. Leftists have decided to hide behind the supreme court rather than fight to change things through actual elected representatives, and it's just sickening.

Unless the leftist attitude changes, Polygamy will be next, which is far worse than SSM. Yeah, you can laugh at me today for saying that, but 30, 40 years from now, I'll be proven right. The Slippery slope is not a scare tactic, it's a fact, and Polygamy is exactly where it's heading.

[PJ]

It's not just an assault on christainity, it's an assault on democracy. Leftists have decided to hide behind the supreme court rather than fight to change things through actual elected representatives, and it's just sickening.

So judges should be democratically elected?

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

It's not just an assault on christainity, it's an assault on democracy. Leftists have decided to hide behind the supreme court rather than fight to change things through actual elected representatives, and it's just sickening.

So judges should be democratically elected?

Anything would be better than the current system of presidents strategically shaping the court to fit the desires of their favorite billionaire or special interest group.

[PJ]

It's not just an assault on christainity, it's an assault on democracy. Leftists have decided to hide behind the supreme court rather than fight to change things through actual elected representatives, and it's just sickening.

So judges should be democratically elected?

Anything would be better than the current system of presidents strategically shaping the court to fit the desires of their favorite billionaire or special interest group.

Billionaires and special interest groups have immense control over elections though, you see. Plus, given how popular same-sex marriage is, an elected SCOTUS would've legalized it anyway. Seems like you're trying to throw out the concept of the judicial branch because you disagree with one ruling.

[CapoteMonster]

Don't talk to me about tolerance when you said nothing as Wulfric was mocked by anti-Christian bigot rhetoric.

I dislike same sex marriage. I don't dislike gays. How do those quotes matter?

While most of the dialogue towards him would belong in the religion/philosophy section of Atlas, everything expect for the jealous gf joke by Castro were just fair critiques of his view on sin or religion's role in government. My point was that your being hypocritical in comparing so called overzealous SSM supporters to Nazis and implying 5 Religous justices put themselves above God while claiming to have taken the decision calmly. If those quotes didn't matter you wouldn't be in deep water with the moderators right now. Meanwhile Wulfric's implying polygamy is on the liberal agenda and accusing SSM supporters of paving the way towards it so I hardly find him worth defending right now.

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

The only sensible response is surrender. It's time to lay down and accept reality. The fight is over, and SSM should be treated as settled law for all eternity. It's sad that SCOTUS has chosen to endorse sin, but it's the way things are and the fact is that the world is not going to end and straight people are not going to be forced to marry gay people. It's time for complete surrender.

Ok, I don't want to go too far down the rabbit hole on this, but what is the scriptural basis for the idea that legalizing sin = endorsing sin?

1 Timothy 5:20 :

As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear.

Voting for a sin-favorable ruling, as 5 justices did here, is the exact opposite of rebuking.

You do realize that verse was discussing what a church should do with its members and not with how the church should react to society at large, don't you? Do you really want SCOTUS setting church policies?

No, I just don't want them to force change on an insitution mandated by God with the first humans - marriage between a man and a woman.

You actually believe in Adam and Eve? lmaoooooooo

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Keeping Christianity out of the public secular space, which is to be partial no religion, is an assault on Christianity and democracy? The Christian Persecution Complex is at it again! Oh by the way, we were changing things through elected representatives (and winning), SCOTUS just sped up the process.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The slippery slope is a logical fallacy, not an argument.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

It's not just an assault on christainity, it's an assault on democracy. Leftists have decided to hide behind the supreme court rather than fight to change things through actual elected representatives, and it's just sickening.

you don't get to vote on our human rights.

[JohnRM]

It's not just an assault on christainity, it's an assault on democracy. Leftists have decided to hide behind the supreme court rather than fight to change things through actual elected representatives, and it's just sickening.

you don't get to vote on our human rights.

Receiving government benefits is NOT a human right. This isn't free speech we're talking about here. It is a question of government benefits to encourage a particular form of marriage.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

It's a good piece from Jack Hunter, but I'd say left-liberals are too angry over gay marriage too, given they are willing to drive people out of their homes over it.   

[DrScholl]

Discrimination laws work across the board, so a bakery refusing to bake a cake for a person based on race or religion would get fined, too. If this was a case of a bakery refusing to bake a cake for Christians, the law would also apply.

[MaxQue]

It's a good piece from Jack Hunter, but I'd say left-liberals are too angry over gay marriage too, given they are willing to drive people out of their homes over it.   

This has nothing to do with "left-liberals". Those people were sued and they lost, hence, they have to pay costs. Putting a lien on an home until payment is the usual and current practice. They were fined, they have to pay the fine.

And before someone complain about "activist judges", here, the Oregon law was plainly applied. Damn activist legislature.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

That's funny.  They've avoided the issue like the plague for a decade and essentially invited gay 'mirage' to become law. Repubs gave up a long time ago. If that's angry, can't help ya.

The battle is over and we lost. Terms of surrender: We want religious freedom and media to stop calling us haters. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/02/opinion/sunday/the-terms-of-our-surrender.html?_r=0

This battle isn't over. We have a clear path to overturn this. I've been in this fight for a long time and will never bow to this.

Lol what path is that?

Congress strips the federal courts of jurisdiction on marriage (which they can do). Then states simply reinforce the bans (which they can legally do because our good friend the 10th amendment and 1st Amendment which protects Religious Freedom) could be done now

That's one way

States propose (yes state assemblies can propose amendments) Judicial Reform (see The Liberty Amendments by Mark Levin) bye bye Obama justices and Ginsburg (Obamacare, Roe v Wade, and Oberfall vs Hodges promptly overturned by originalist SCOTUS majority ) After GOP presidential win

That's another

Oh there's more

Clerks refuse to issue licenses to gay couples (Texas is doing this in places and others are too) citing religious freedom, case goes to Supreme Court (after said GOP win and removal of said justices) courts rule in favor of clerks and reinstall the bans along the way

SCOTUS ruling that Obama wasn't constitutionally qualified to serve as President
(That overturns every law passed and signed by Obama and all court rulings due to his SCOTUS appointments being nullified) also under a GOP presidency

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

It's a good piece from Jack Hunter, but I'd say left-liberals are too angry over gay marriage too, given they are willing to drive people out of their homes over it.   

This has nothing to do with "left-liberals". Those people were sued and they lost, hence, they have to pay costs. Putting a lien on an home until payment is the usual and current practice. They were fined, they have to pay the fine.

And before someone complain about "activist judges", here, the Oregon law was plainly applied. Damn activist legislature.

Oregon has violated their religious freedom as individuals (which extends to the business) and now wants to deny their freedom of speech.

[Joe Republic]

^ Give it up, you lost.

[JerryArkansas]

That's funny.  They've avoided the issue like the plague for a decade and essentially invited gay 'mirage' to become law. Repubs gave up a long time ago. If that's angry, can't help ya.

The battle is over and we lost. Terms of surrender: We want religious freedom and media to stop calling us haters. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/02/opinion/sunday/the-terms-of-our-surrender.html?_r=0

This battle isn't over. We have a clear path to overturn this. I've been in this fight for a long time and will never bow to this.

Lol what path is that?

Congress strips the federal courts of jurisdiction on marriage (which they can do). Then states simply reinforce the bans (which they can legally do because our good friend the 10th amendment and 1st Amendment which protects Religious Freedom) could be done now

That's one way

States propose (yes state assemblies can propose amendments) Judicial Reform (see The Liberty Amendments by Mark Levin) bye bye Obama justices and Ginsburg (Obamacare, Roe v Wade, and Oberfall vs Hodges promptly overturned by originalist SCOTUS majority ) After GOP presidential win

That's another

Oh there's more

Clerks refuse to issue licenses to gay couples (Texas is doing this in places and others are too) citing religious freedom, case goes to Supreme Court (after said GOP win and removal of said justices) courts rule in favor of clerks and reinstall the bans along the way

SCOTUS ruling that Obama wasn't constitutionally qualified to serve as President
(That overturns every law passed and signed by Obama and all court rulings due to his SCOTUS appointments being nullified) also under a GOP presidency

That is the biggest pile of sh**t I have ever read.  Not only is none of it really possible, it gives an impression of desperation  the part of JLC. 

[MaxQue]

That's funny.  They've avoided the issue like the plague for a decade and essentially invited gay 'mirage' to become law. Repubs gave up a long time ago. If that's angry, can't help ya.

The battle is over and we lost. Terms of surrender: We want religious freedom and media to stop calling us haters. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/02/opinion/sunday/the-terms-of-our-surrender.html?_r=0

This battle isn't over. We have a clear path to overturn this. I've been in this fight for a long time and will never bow to this.

Lol what path is that?

Congress strips the federal courts of jurisdiction on marriage (which they can do). Then states simply reinforce the bans (which they can legally do because our good friend the 10th amendment and 1st Amendment which protects Religious Freedom) could be done now

That's one way

States propose (yes state assemblies can propose amendments) Judicial Reform (see The Liberty Amendments by Mark Levin) bye bye Obama justices and Ginsburg (Obamacare, Roe v Wade, and Oberfall vs Hodges promptly overturned by originalist SCOTUS majority ) After GOP presidential win

That's another

Oh there's more

Clerks refuse to issue licenses to gay couples (Texas is doing this in places and others are too) citing religious freedom, case goes to Supreme Court (after said GOP win and removal of said justices) courts rule in favor of clerks and reinstall the bans along the way

SCOTUS ruling that Obama wasn't constitutionally qualified to serve as President
(That overturns every law passed and signed by Obama and all court rulings due to his SCOTUS appointments being nullified) also under a GOP presidency

That is the biggest pile of sh**t I have ever read.  Not only is none of it really possible, it gives an impression of desperation  the part of JLC. 

That's not desperation, that's plain insanity.