Supreme Court: Marriage

[serpentdove]

My point is most relevant today. Do you understand what I said?

I do. I disagree. Even if the whole culture agrees with them, Sodomites won't experience joy (Is 57:21).

This isn't about their finances. This is about their idolatry (2 Cor. 6:15–18) and the lack of fulfillment that follows (Ga 6:8).

Texas Man Proposes to Another Man in ‘Church’ Despite United Methodist Ban on Same-Sex ‘Marriage’

 

[serpentdove]

Global Coalition Calls for Nine Days to Pray and Fast for the Sanctity of Life, Marriage, and for the Synod on the Family October 16 - 24, 2015 2 Chron 7:14

 

[serpentdove]

'I do, I do, I do:' Brazilian female trio get hitched

Marriage is for one man and one woman (Gen. 2:18–24) for life (Rom. 7:2, 3).

 

[Desert Reign]

'I do, I do, I do:' Brazilian female trio get hitched

Marriage is for one man and one woman (Gen. 2:18–24) for life (Rom. 7:2, 3).

We want to enjoy the same maternal rights that everyone else has."

With none of the responsibilities, no doubt.

Like finding a suitable man and learning to love him till death.

But seriously, I think the best way forward for you in the USofA is to de-legalise marriage. It will be a shame because married people will no longer have the protection of the law. But that's what it is if you allow a free-for-all. Only let everyone make sure that they have a written contact of marriage. This contract would set out all the details of separation, divorce, mutual rights and duties, children and so on.

 

[serpentdove]

With none of the responsibilities, no doubt.

Like finding a suitable man and learning to love him till death.

Covenent schmovenent :blabla: they say (Eccl 10:2, Jn 10:10, Heb 13:4).

See:

Disposable Culture

 

[quip]

But seriously, I think the best way forward for you in the USofA is to de-legalise marriage. It will be a shame because married people will no longer have the protection of the law. .... This contract would set out all the details of separation, divorce, mutual rights and duties, children and so on.

And praytell how this contract would be enforced sans legal means?

 

[serpentdove]

[Abolishing marriage] [H]ow [would] this contract would be enforced sans legal means?

Marriage has been instituted by God (Gen. 2:18–24).

 

[Desert Reign]

And praytell how this contract would be enforced sans legal means?

How old are you?

Anyone can make a legal contact with someone else. The contract is enforceable in the courts. But that is all. If you live with someone and don't have a contract, then it's tough luck on you if you break up and end up with nothing afterwards. That's what it will be without the law to protect people. That will be the ultimate consequence of the liberalisation of marriage.

 

[quip]

How old are you?

Anyone can make a legal contact with someone else. The contract is enforceable in the courts. But that is all. If you live with someone and don't have a contract, then it's tough luck on you if you break up and end up with nothing afterwards. That's what it will be without the law to protect people. That will be the ultimate consequence of the liberalisation of marriage.

Then how is this construed as non-legalizing marriage?

...and I'm getting up there in age.

 

[jgarden]

[American Family Association Tim Wildmon] "Tomorrow, April 28, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments for and against redefining marriage in America. The very institution of God's design for marriage as only between one man and one woman is on trial. As hard as it is to believe, nine people will decide if our nation will honor God and obey Him, or turn its back on the most fundamental building block of society and on God himself. This will be the most important decision in the history of America. I'm urging you to do just one thing...Pray. Here is a link to four prayers to help your prayer time. Please, for the sake of our nation, Pray." Gen. 2:18–24

As recently as 1967, 17 states had laws making interracial marriage illegal. Many of these state laws were based on supposedly religious grounds.

It was the Supreme Court, not Congress, that established the right for Americans to marry whom they choose - irrespective of race.

American conservatives were making dire predictions that the country was about to "go to hell in a handbasket."

The current Supreme Court decision means that the government, not the Church, will recognize same-sex marriage.

Given that marriages involving atheists, agnostics and non-Christians are already recognized, I fail to see why conservatives are making "sexual orientation" the crucial issue!

 

[genuineoriginal]

As recently as 1967, 17 states had laws making interracial marriage illegal. Many of these state laws were based on supposedly religious grounds.

It was the Supreme Court, not Congress, that established the right for Americans to marry whom they choose - irrespective of race.

If you are claiming that the Supreme Court exceeded the authority granted by the Constitution, then you are correct.

American conservatives were making dire predictions that the country was about to "go to hell in a handbasket."

It looks like that prediction came true, and the proof is in the current laws granting same gender "marriage".

 

[serpentdove]

Father, Adopted Son Seek Right To Marry Each Other Gen. 2:18–24

 

[Greg Jennings]

Since so much of this crazy argument seems to stem from the fact that the word "marriage" is used to describe a homosexual union.

A question for the anti-gay marriagers here: if a different term was used for homosexual unions (like mareage, I guess) and all the same rights and benefits that heterosexual married couples receive were extended to these eloped homosexuals, would that be cool with you?

 

[Greg Jennings]

Father, Adopted Son Seek Right To Marry Each Other Gen. 2:18–24

And in Germany a brother and sister with the same father petitioned their government to be able to marry each other.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-fundamental-right-German-committee-says.html

Don't conflate two issues. There's a lot more heterosexual incest out there than homosexual

 

[Lexington'96]

As recently as 1967, 17 states had laws making interracial marriage illegal. Many of these state laws were based on supposedly religious grounds.

With interracial marriage people had already determined that they were against it and tried to use scripture to justify their opinions. There is nothing in the Bible that would suggest that interracial marriage is wrong, in fact, Moses' wife was black.

It was the Supreme Court, not Congress, that established the right for Americans to marry whom they choose - irrespective of race.

Loving v. Virginia was clearly grounded in the Constitution, while Obergefell v. Hodges was not.

American conservatives were making dire predictions that the country was about to "go to hell in a handbasket."

Some were, but their opinions were not based on Scripture or the Constitution.

 

[genuineoriginal]

With interracial marriage people had already determined that they were against it and tried to use scripture to justify their opinions. There is nothing in the Bible that would suggest that interracial marriage is wrong, in fact, Moses' wife was black.

So were quite a few of Solomon's wives, especially the one in the Song of Songs.

 

[serpentdove]

Man 'marries sex doll' Gen. 2:18–24

Related:

Dozens of people mistake robot for real woman - and they think she's 'sexy'

 

[serpentdove]

Sodomite marriage "legal", but not on some tribal lands Gen. 2:18–24

The wickedness of Sodom ([Ex 20:14] heterosexual [Lev. 20:10–12] or homosexual [Lev. 20:10,13]) was notorious (Gen. 13:13).

 

[serpentdove]

Mississippi same-sex divorce granted Gen. 2:18–24

The wickedness of Sodom ([Ex 20:14] heterosexual [Lev. 20:10–12] or homosexual [Lev. 20:10,13]) :5020: was notorious (Gen. 13:13).

 

[Zeke]

It is done.

Sorry to shout but I just want to emphasize EVERYTHING THAT IS TAKING PLACE MUST OCCUR for the ultimate establishment of the one world government/economy/religion to be established, as foretold in God's Word.

Disbelieve that if you want but as you see us heading more and more in that direction, I'll let you explain to us how the most amazing coincidence in the history of mankind is taking place.

Better learn about the surname, that contract must be broken if you want to claim you are a spiritual living man, other wise you are just a citizen of this world, and a created persona under this worlds Gods/Lords/Magistrates who certainly can fulfill the script you think is the living Word, Got government ID? while you are under contract with that persona/strawman you forfeited you're Creator's unalienable rights. That's the facts whether you can grasped it or not.