Ok. I'm tired of hearing fellow Christians and conservatives rip apart the SCOTUS ruling about gay marriage.

If we look at it at face value, and what it is, it is about granting government supplied benefits to 2 people.

The government is not what makes 2 Christian people married. When I stood in front of my minister and said "I do", I did not need the government to tell me I was married. If the government collapsed tomorrow and the entire law book was thrown at the window, I will still be married.

Do you think back in ancient roman days, when two people married, that the government stepped in and provided tax cuts and levied all these benefits? No. Marriage is between 2 people, their minister, and God. I'm sorry, but the government doesn't have any affect on that.

If you have 2 gay guys living next door to you, all this law does is change the fact that if one of them dies, the other then has legal protection to his estate just as you would if your wife died. Seriously, that is it. That's what all this fuss and firestorm is over.

If your wife is in the hospital, you will be allowed in because you are family.
With the two gay guys who weren't allowed to marry, one wouldn't be allowed to visit the other while they are in a hospital bed dying,..

These are the things you are against. You are against the government providing some benefits to two men or two women, and act as if the government is actually what makes you married in your Christian world.

I could give 2 flying f*cks if the couple next to me gets to visit each other in the hospital, gets tax breaks, or gets power over their estate if their loved one dies.

Personally, it grosses me out to see two men kissing, and I don't agree with that lifestyle. But what the government is granting them is not a "Christian" marriage. It grants them government benefits that has no relation at all to a Christian Marriage.

Nobody seemed to give a rats ass about atheists getting married. That IMO should be waaaaay worse according to those who bash gay marriage.

/end rant

The argument is over. We'll know the repercussions in 200 years.

(06-29-2015 07:42 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  The argument is over. We'll know the repercussions in 200 years.

repercussions for what? the government (which was not created as a christian organization) giving gay people benefits?

Do you believe atheists and jewish people should be denied these benefits?

With very few exceptions, marriage has been between a man and a woman throughout human history. To think we can radically depart from that and have absolutely no "issues" arise would be naive.

Pandora's Box is open. We're about to see what's inside.

(06-29-2015 07:51 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  With very few exceptions, marriage has been between a man and a woman throughout human history. To think we can radically depart from that and have absolutely no "issues" arise would be naive.

Pandora's Box is open. We're about to see what's inside.

right, but what did government benefits have to do with marriage in the year 100AD?

And you didn't answer my question.

Do you believe atheists and Jewish people should be allowed the same marital benefits as Christians? Because technically, not believing in God is a much bigger sin than being gay.

(06-29-2015 07:35 AM)NCeagle Wrote:  Ok. I'm tired of hearing fellow Christians and conservatives rip apart the SCOTUS ruling about gay marriage.

If we look at it at face value, and what it is, it is about granting government supplied benefits to 2 people.

The government is not what makes 2 Christian people married. When I stood in front of my minister and said "I do", I did not need the government to tell me I was married. If the government collapsed tomorrow and the entire law book was thrown at the window, I will still be married.

Do you think back in ancient roman days, when two people married, that the government stepped in and provided tax cuts and levied all these benefits? No. Marriage is between 2 people, their minister, and God. I'm sorry, but the government doesn't have any affect on that.

If you have 2 gay guys living next door to you, all this law does is change the fact that if one of them dies, the other then has legal protection to his estate just as you would if your wife died. Seriously, that is it. That's what all this fuss and firestorm is over.

If your wife is in the hospital, you will be allowed in because you are family.
With the two gay guys who weren't allowed to marry, one wouldn't be allowed to visit the other while they are in a hospital bed dying,..

These are the things you are against. You are against the government providing some benefits to two men or two women, and act as if the government is actually what makes you married in your Christian world.

I could give 2 flying f*cks if the couple next to me gets to visit each other in the hospital, gets tax breaks, or gets power over their estate if their loved one dies.

Personally, it grosses me out to see two men kissing, and I don't agree with that lifestyle. But what the government is granting them is not a "Christian" marriage. It grants them government benefits that has no relation at all to a Christian Marriage.

Nobody seemed to give a rats ass about atheists getting married. That IMO should be waaaaay worse according to those who bash gay marriage.

/end rant

I agree with this on principle. My main objections are with the culture and not the government. Couldn't care less about 2 men entering a contract. I care that our culture is dictating we embrace it and have pride in the sin. Is there another sin out there where we are called to be proud of it? Maybe swingers, but even they don't expect people outside the lifestyle embrace it.

(06-29-2015 07:35 AM)NCeagle Wrote:  The government is not what makes 2 Christian people married. When I stood in front of my minister and said "I do", I did not need the government to tell me I was married. If the government collapsed tomorrow and the entire law book was thrown at the window, I will still be married.

Well, technically, in the US, couples must get a marriage license from the govt to be legally married. So, I imagine you have one of those and if the govt collapsed you'd still have it.

This got me thinking. What is better, having a marriage that must go through govt and has religuos components, or having marriage that is purely religious based that govt has no part of?

The distinction is obvious between "marriage" as a ceremony and as a legal instrument. In regard to the legal instrument the laws are the same now. What has basically happened is that adult couples can be legally bound to each other equally. This could have been done the same way with civil unions for everyone.

I still expect some radical LGBT nuts to try and push this further on the religious side but I see that failing miserably. I believe the vast majority just wanted the legal status of marriage. One thing now is for sure. The LGBT community will have to play by the same legal rules as everyone else. I expect to see some lawyers start specializing in same sex divorces. There are always consequences of any new law.

(06-29-2015 08:18 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 07:35 AM)NCeagle Wrote:  The government is not what makes 2 Christian people married. When I stood in front of my minister and said "I do", I did not need the government to tell me I was married. If the government collapsed tomorrow and the entire law book was thrown at the window, I will still be married.

Well, technically, in the US, couples must get a marriage license from the govt to be legally married. So, I imagine you have one of those and if the govt collapsed you'd still have it.

This got me thinking. What is better, having a marriage that must go through govt and has religuos components, or having marriage that is purely religious based that govt has no part of?

To get government benefits as a married couple, yes, you must get a marriage certificate. But a Christian Marriage doesn't need a government to validate it. That's my point. All the government does is give you benefits that you otherwise wouldn't get.

I don't need a government to tell me I'm married. Even if I never got the license, I would still call my wife, my wife, because we stood in front of a minister, and we said I do. I don't need the government to tell me I'm married.
And if the government fell apart and there was no more government, what the hell good would a piece of paper do?

(06-29-2015 08:18 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 07:35 AM)NCeagle Wrote:  The government is not what makes 2 Christian people married. When I stood in front of my minister and said "I do", I did not need the government to tell me I was married. If the government collapsed tomorrow and the entire law book was thrown at the window, I will still be married.

Well, technically, in the US, couples must get a marriage license from the govt to be legally married. So, I imagine you have one of those and if the govt collapsed you'd still have it.

This got me thinking. What is better, having a marriage that must go through govt and has religuos components, or having marriage that is purely religious based that govt has no part of?

The best IMO would be simple legal contracts between parties to share each other assets. Then would be the religious component if you wished to partake in it. Getting the government out of our business would be preferable.

(06-29-2015 08:24 AM)NCeagle Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 08:18 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 07:35 AM)NCeagle Wrote:  The government is not what makes 2 Christian people married. When I stood in front of my minister and said "I do", I did not need the government to tell me I was married. If the government collapsed tomorrow and the entire law book was thrown at the window, I will still be married.

Well, technically, in the US, couples must get a marriage license from the govt to be legally married. So, I imagine you have one of those and if the govt collapsed you'd still have it.

This got me thinking. What is better, having a marriage that must go through govt and has religuos components, or having marriage that is purely religious based that govt has no part of?

To get government benefits as a married couple, yes, you must get a marriage certificate. But a Christian Marriage doesn't need a government to validate it. That's my point. All the government does is give you benefits that you otherwise wouldn't get.

I don't need a government to tell me I'm married. Even if I never got the license, I would still call my wife, my wife, because we stood in front of a minister, and we said I do. I don't need the government to tell me I'm married.
And if the government fell apart and there was no more government, what the hell good would a piece of paper do?

A lot of the time you don't even need the marriage license. Different states have different qualifications for common law marriages.

(06-29-2015 08:24 AM)NCeagle Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 08:18 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 07:35 AM)NCeagle Wrote:  The government is not what makes 2 Christian people married. When I stood in front of my minister and said "I do", I did not need the government to tell me I was married. If the government collapsed tomorrow and the entire law book was thrown at the window, I will still be married.

Well, technically, in the US, couples must get a marriage license from the govt to be legally married. So, I imagine you have one of those and if the govt collapsed you'd still have it.

This got me thinking. What is better, having a marriage that must go through govt and has religuos components, or having marriage that is purely religious based that govt has no part of?

To get government benefits as a married couple, yes, you must get a marriage certificate. But a Christian Marriage doesn't need a government to validate it. That's my point. All the government does is give you benefits that you otherwise wouldn't get.

I don't need a government to tell me I'm married. Even if I never got the license, I would still call my wife, my wife, because we stood in front of a minister, and we said I do. I don't need the government to tell me I'm married.
And if the government fell apart and there was no more government, what the hell good would a piece of paper do?

I understand your point...but...why would anyone choose only a Christian Marriage now? Before government intervention into this the paradigm was different. Religious marriage entailed a quasi-legal aspect due to societal norms. Now the government has taken over that using force.

(06-29-2015 08:30 AM)dfarr Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 08:24 AM)NCeagle Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 08:18 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 07:35 AM)NCeagle Wrote:  The government is not what makes 2 Christian people married. When I stood in front of my minister and said "I do", I did not need the government to tell me I was married. If the government collapsed tomorrow and the entire law book was thrown at the window, I will still be married.

Well, technically, in the US, couples must get a marriage license from the govt to be legally married. So, I imagine you have one of those and if the govt collapsed you'd still have it.

This got me thinking. What is better, having a marriage that must go through govt and has religuos components, or having marriage that is purely religious based that govt has no part of?

To get government benefits as a married couple, yes, you must get a marriage certificate. But a Christian Marriage doesn't need a government to validate it. That's my point. All the government does is give you benefits that you otherwise wouldn't get.

I don't need a government to tell me I'm married. Even if I never got the license, I would still call my wife, my wife, because we stood in front of a minister, and we said I do. I don't need the government to tell me I'm married.
And if the government fell apart and there was no more government, what the hell good would a piece of paper do?

A lot of the time you don't even need the marriage license. Different states have different qualifications for common law marriages.

There are only 9 states that current allow it and it is not the same CLM of the past. You still have to eventually complete some type of legal paperwork with the state now at some point.

(06-29-2015 08:14 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  I agree with this on principle. My main objections are with the culture and not the government. Couldn't care less about 2 men entering a contract. I care that our culture is dictating we embrace it and have pride in the sin. Is there another sin out there where we are called to be proud of it? Maybe swingers, but even they don't expect people outside the lifestyle embrace it.

This is what's most concerning to me. Also, I expect some sort of fall out from pastors / priests who won't marry gay couples.

Thing is, the ruling will not be "enough."

Nothing will ever be "enough."

(06-29-2015 08:44 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  Thing is, the ruling will not be "enough."

Nothing will ever be "enough."

Other than forcing churches and pastors to perform same sex ceremonies...I don't see what else is attainable. Personally...I give that an almost zero chance of happening. The court was pretty clear on this issue. Any attempts in this regard would open the door for further challenges in the court. Challenges that could at some point undo what we just had happen. It was a narrow decision. Lets not forget that. Those that won this week would be wise to take this win and move on quietly. In fact...They would be wise to shout down any radicals that make attempts to take this further.

so could someone who believes gay people shouldn't get government benefits because it is a sin, explain to me why you are ok with atheists and jewish people get the same benefits?

(06-29-2015 08:54 AM)NCeagle Wrote:  so could someone who believes gay people shouldn't get government benefits because it is a sin, explain to me why you are ok with atheists and jewish people get the same benefits?

It is a contract. The rest is irrelevant now IMO.

At this point adults can simply just bind legally with each other for financial benefit. They don't even have to like each other now. I expect we will see some level of fraud pop up now because of this.

(06-29-2015 09:00 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 08:54 AM)NCeagle Wrote:  so could someone who believes gay people shouldn't get government benefits because it is a sin, explain to me why you are ok with atheists and jewish people get the same benefits?

It is a contract. The rest is irrelevant now IMO.

At this point adults can simply just bind legally with each other for financial benefit. They don't even have to like each other now. I expect we will see some level of fraud pop up now because of this.

I wasn't asking what it was. I was asking what people's opinions were.

(06-29-2015 09:00 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 08:54 AM)NCeagle Wrote:  so could someone who believes gay people shouldn't get government benefits because it is a sin, explain to me why you are ok with atheists and jewish people get the same benefits?

It is a contract. The rest is irrelevant now IMO.

At this point adults can simply just bind legally with each other for financial benefit. They don't even have to like each other now. I expect we will see some level of fraud pop up now because of this.

you could still do that before last Friday...gay marriage didn't change that.