[TheRealThing]

I guess it is just the big issue for the time, but I just hate hearing everyone talk about it and their reasoning is that it is a sin. These are the same people who wouldn't say a word to those partaking in premarital sex or promiscuity. I would just ask that if you fight against something because it is a sin, then don't pick and choose which ones, fight against all sins. Don't be okay with one thing because more people you know do it, and not be okay with something that is not as common.

I am sure if you go through my post and find hypocritical stuff, and that is fine, I am a hypocrite. Just how it is, but I felt it needed to be said.

I understand what you're saying and yet scripture reveals there are levels of sin and levels of repercussion for those sins, though in no way would I suggest that promiscuity is ever acceptable behavior. For example, 23 posted a scripture which forbade the wife of a man fighting with another man from grabbing her husband's opponent by his privates. The penalty for having done so was to have her hand cut off. However, the law also said the penalty for taking the life of an innocent person is to be stoned or executed. All sin is not equal. Without wanting to belabor the point, consider Sodom and Gomorrah. They were wiped off the face of the earth by the hand of God for the sin of homosexuality. Gone without a trace. The other sins you mention are bad but, I know of no civilization totally erased because of one of them. Additionally I know of no other sin for which God will turn the offender over to a reprobate mind for having done; other than those who live the homosexual lifestyle or "abusers of themselves with mankind"

None the less, here is a list of sins of which God has said none who practice will enter His kingdom.
1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (KJV)
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

Notice verse 11 states that those who turn their back on sin and are washed in the name of the Lord Jesus become justified. In any event, my problem with all of this is the objectionable actions of the legislative and the judiciary branches of our government which are in the process of usurping the authority of God by attempting to overturn His clear law on the matter. When a nation shakes their fist in the face of the Almighty, no good will come of it short of national repentance for having done so. We certainly don't have the right to tell others what to do with themselves however, when we validate the err of their ways with law emanating out of the SCOTUS, federal and state government, we are really asking for judgment to fall, and it will.

[SKINNYPIG]

So your against divorce? And you think you should not be able to have a divorce?

And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery." —Mark 1:1-12

I dont hear people on here going on about divorce?


Has a women ever spoken in your church?

"Women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but should be submissive, as the law also says." (1 Corinthians 14:34)


Know any long haired Christians?

"Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?" (l Corinthians 11:14)


My wifes preacher was talking about this today.

Said he used to let this bother him and make him angry. What the government does and allows. Said he no longer lets it bother him. He ended with this.

When I am afraid, I will trust in you. In God, whose word I praise, in God I trust; I will not be afraid. What can mortal man do to me?

Sin is long and wide and this could go on forever. You didn't mention divorce, women speaking in church or men with long hair in the post I replied to.

I'm sure that if any of those subjects were to be brought up for rule by the SCOTUS or legislated in any way today, they too would be discussed by those that agree or disagree. The subject of the day today and every other day is same sex marriage as it is constantly dragged through the courts and shoved in face of us all. Maybe, just maybe that is the reason It's harped on the most.

Just as your wife's preacher, and as I said in my post, I don't like it but, I can live with it. Not one second of sleep will I miss.

[TheRealThing]

As long as it is left up to the states I am cool with it. I feel like the states can better represent their people than the feds.

Well said. Today's ruling confirmed state sovereignty when it comes to the legality or lack there of, regarding same sex marriage. Twelve states do recognize same sex marriage and, it looks like today's ruling states that those twelve states cannot deny dependents of same sex couples the same benefits that dependents of hetero couples presently get.

In the Prop 8 ruling. The court found that those who got it put on the ballot didn't have legal standing to do it. Which, if I understand that correctly merely means they didn't actually have a dog in the fight. Critics say the SCOTUS punted, and ignored the will of the people who voted 60% in support of Prop 8. The will of the people in that vote has been nullified by the court.

[TheRealVille]

Well said. Today's ruling confirmed state sovereignty when it comes to the legality or lack there of, regarding same sex marriage. Twelve states do recognize same sex marriage and, it looks like today's ruling states that those twelve states cannot deny dependents of same sex couples the same benefits that dependents of hetero couples presently get.

In the Prop 8 ruling. The court found that those who got it put on the ballot didn't have legal standing to do it. Which, if I understand that correctly merely means they didn't actually have a dog in the fight. Critics say the SCOTUS punted, and ignored the will of the people who voted 60% in support of Prop 8. The will of the people in that vote has been nullified by the court.

No, they said the decision was based on equal protection.

[HonestJohn]

I am a believer, and I think our country is headed in a direction that is going to end in God punishing our country for allowing all this ungodlessness to continue. I have kids, and I hope they abide by the BIBLE and the laws God gave us to live by (which is what I try to instill in them by my actions and by my words). I see every day in this country that some special interest group tries to force their twisted beliefs down good moral Godly people's throats. If you think this is not true, answer this---who is the bigot? Is it the ungodly groups forcing their agenda, or the Godly people trying to live by the BIBLE teachings that Christ taught. Every day you hear how some "radical" Christian group will not tolerate the ungodly acts of other americans (who because of their ungodly agenda get special consideration over americans not doing the same ungodly acts). Christ teaches us to abide in the law and not conform to the world and its twisted teachings. It saddens me, but America seems to not be a Christian nation anymore. According to the BIBLE, we as a country, will pay for our straying from God's teachings just as all the blessed nations before us. Why can't we as a country see that every great civilization before us has perished because of their moral decay and society's promotion of these ungodly actions. The sad part is I don't know if the America we see today has enough Christian people that want to return to the GODLY country we once were. And if there is enough Christian people, will they stand up for what they supposedly believe and not be swayed by the world and its ungodly lusts. I pray God bless America again to be "ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL".

[TheRealThing]

I am a believer, and I think our country is headed in a direction that is going to end in God punishing our country for allowing all this ungodlessness to continue. I have kids, and I hope they abide by the BIBLE and the laws God gave us to live by (which is what I try to instill in them by my actions and by my words). I see every day in this country that some special interest group tries to force their twisted beliefs down good moral Godly people's throats. If you think this is not true, answer this---who is the bigot? Is it the ungodly groups forcing their agenda, or the Godly people trying to live by the BIBLE teachings that Christ taught. Every day you hear how some "radical" Christian group will not tolerate the ungodly acts of other americans (who because of their ungodly agenda get special consideration over americans not doing the same ungodly acts). Christ teaches us to abide in the law and not conform to the world and its twisted teachings. It saddens me, but America seems to not be a Christian nation anymore. According to the BIBLE, we as a country, will pay for our straying from God's teachings just as all the blessed nations before us. Why can't we as a country see that every great civilization before us has perished because of their moral decay and society's promotion of these ungodly actions. The sad part is I don't know if the America we see today has enough Christian people that want to return to the GODLY country we once were. And if there is enough Christian people, will they stand up for what they supposedly believe and not be swayed by the world and its ungodly lusts. I pray God bless America again to be "ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL".

The great equalizer for the cause of the advancement of those who advocate for secular humanism has been the accusation from the left against those on the right for being intolerant of others. Of course, the truth is we are merely pointing out God's standards as they apply to personal moral behavior. We don't judge anybody but, we understand that abortions and the like are contrary to God's will. So, because we dare to point folks in the right direction and resist state and national laws to the contrary, we are branded as being intolerant self righteous bigots. This even though God has clearly stated that we are His instruments through which He reaches out to the world to save those who will repent.

The withering assault from the left, characterized by their charges of Christian's self righteousness and lack of tolerance for others, especially if the nuclear option can be used, that of racial bias, has caused the church to shrink back from her charge to expose sin and the ravanges of sin.

Christians are to speak out against what is wrong. Frankly that isn't so much to ask when one considers the unspeakable sacrifice of the Son of God for man when, he laid down His life on the cross for us. The liberals are exactly right when they say they have the right to live anyway they want. And Christians have it right when they point out the ramifications of sin. Where America as a nation has left the path, is to allow government to legislate in favor of sin (declaring them legal), in lieu of a live and let live policy. (IMO, the true face of the concept of the separation of church and state) It's more than a bit ironic that folks want to holler about an invasive federal government about some things, while they demand federal invasion to force those who disagree with them to acquiesce on matters of sexual depravity and matters of social justice.

The fox is in the henhouse. We have a group of legislators who espouse the tenets of liberalism and who despise Christianity and much of what it stands for. This is the reason politicians are presently consumed with micro managing the personal lives of folks rather than investing themselves in true statesmanship and governance of the people. Christians are being forced to capitulate. And, this is why America has lost face around the globe. Strength, power and opulence have been shouldered aside by tolerance on steroids and social justice, as all of the legislation presently being considered clearly reveals. I mean, with all that is afoot around the globe and in our own backyard and the SCOTUS is wasting time with taking on the liberal argument? :please:

When Ronald Reagan came to office, the word of an American president bode incredible ramifications for those who would defy the world's greatest superpower. Before he even got to swear his presidential oath, the Iranians made sure they told Mr Reagan that the hostages would be sent home immediately. These days it seems nobody is afraid to test us. With congressional liberals clamoring for us to lay down in the face of terror for all the world to hear. It wouldn't take a war college grad to see that our national resolve has dissolved. We've laid down our compass. The greatest nation has turned her back on the source of wisdom which has guided us for 237 years and we are lost.

[TheRealThing]

No, they said the decision was based on equal protection.

Which is why the justices protected the dependents of same sex married couples, genius.

[TheRealVille]

Which is why the justices protected the dependents of same sex married couples, genius.

Just pointing out that you were wrong when you say the reason for their decision was to protect state sovereinty. The court explained their reason was equal protection.

[TheRealVille]

Honest John, no one is trying to force anything on you. If you aren't gay, don't marry someone of the same sex. But, you and me, being straight, don't have the right to decide if gays can marry or not. Their marriage hurts us zero. BTW, America was never a Christian nation... Just sayin.

[TheRealThing]

Just pointing out that you were wrong when you say the reason for their decision was to protect state sovereinty. The court explained their reason was equal protection.

No, what I said was their decision had the effect of reverting jurisdiction in the matter back to the state, thusly reinforcing state sovereignty. Since you seem to skip over parts of other people's posts, here's a refresher for you. Post 33 - "it looks like today's ruling states that those twelve states cannot deny dependents of same sex couples the same benefits that dependents of hetero couples presently get."

[TheRealVille]

As long as it is left up to the states I am cool with it. I feel like the states can better represent their people than the feds.

The ruling opened the door to suing states that won't recognize same sex marriages the same way they recognize other marriages. Now watch states start falling in line, because they already know how the court is going to rule.

[TheRealThing]

The ruling opened the door to suing states that won't recognize same sex marriages the same way they recognize other marriages. Now watch states start falling in line, because they already know how the court is going to rule.

Misery truly seems to love company. This ^ is what you hope will happen. State sovereignty was upheld, at least as far as this ruling is concerned. I have already agreed with you in posts past that America is in moral free fall and prone to choose wrong over right. The addition of Sotomayor and Kagan has effectively seeded the court in perfect fulfillment of the oft used idiom "the blind leading the blind".

[HonestJohn]

Honest John, no one is trying to force anything on you. If you aren't gay, don't marry someone of the same sex. But, you and me, being straight, don't have the right to decide if gays can marry or not. Their marriage hurts us zero. BTW, America was never a Christian nation... Just sayin.

America was founded by people trying to get away from unlawful taxing and in persuit of religious freedom. God is everywhere in our founding fathers documents. Our current society has just gotten so used to the ungodliness that it is becoming almost acceptable even in churches. I didn't say same sex marriage was wrong, God did in the BIBLE--his guide on how we are to live our lives. This is the main reason I don't think I should have to listen to people such as yourself tell me it is OK for same sex marriages, I guess I just value God's opinion more than yours. I also won't have to stand and give an account of myself to you when I die, but I will to God. You better think twice before leading others away from the pricipals listed in the BIBLE. We will all be accountable one day, and we all have our own sins to answer for. But that is why God is so great---His word says just ask forgiveness and turn from your disobedience and He is faithful and just to forgive us and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. It never amazes me how people preaching tolerance are so untolerable of any opinions not totally supporting their agenda. I am not going to comment further, and I will pray for you.

[TheRealVille]

^Which god? Where in any official US document does it mention Jesus? Where, in any official US founding document does it mentio Christianity? How do we know the founders weren't trying to get away from England's Christianity, and found a country on religious freedom, where we get to decide what "god" we serve, individually? Now, there's a thought. Just sayin...


Christians are trying to force your god on the rest of us, through laws. It should be obvious the rest of us aren't going to let it happen.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

The ruling opened the door to suing states that won't recognize same sex marriages the same way they recognize other marriages. Now watch states start falling in line, because they already know how the court is going to rule.

Not true. There is no reason at present for states that limit marriage to traditional couples to "start falling into line". A number of states have traditional marriage as part of their state constitutions. It will be difficult for any federal court to infringe upon the sovereignty of individual states.

The Tenth Amendment is still a most powerful and prominent part of the US Constitution.

States are not required to fall in line with other states on strictly state matters. For example, when I drive to South Carolina, I travel a goodly number of miles on I-77. While in West Virginia, the speed limit is usually 70 mph. When I cross the border into Virginia, the speed limit is 65 mph. When I then cross into North Carolina, the speed limit goes back to 70 mph.

All the while, I am traveling on I-77. However, if I drive 70 mph in Virginia, I can get a ticket for speeding while that is not the case in the other two states. Why? Local control. It is an example of the Tenth Amendment at work. Marriage laws should be no different and, at present, are no different.

Of course, put another wild-eyed liberal on the USSC to replace one of the conservatives and our whole body of established law could well be shredded.

[TheRealThing]

The ruling opened the door to suing states that won't recognize same sex marriages the same way they recognize other marriages. Now watch states start falling in line, because they already know how the court is going to rule.

Not true. There is no reason at present for states that limit marriage to traditional couples to "start falling into line". A number of states have traditional marriage as part of their state constitutions. It will be difficult for any federal court to infringe upon the sovereignty of individual states.

The Tenth Amendment is still a most powerful and prominent part of the US Constitution.

States are not required to fall in line with other states on strictly state matters. For example, when I drive to South Carolina, I travel a goodly number of miles on I-77. While in West Virginia, the speed limit is usually 70 mph. When I cross the border into Virginia, the speed limit is 65 mph. When I then cross into North Carolina, the speed limit goes back to 70 mph.

All the while, I am traveling on I-77. However, if I drive 70 mph in Virginia, I can get a ticket for speeding while that is not the case in the other two states. Why? Local control. It is an example of the Tenth Amendment at work. Marriage laws should be no different and, at present, are no different.

Of course, put another wild-eyed liberal on the USSC to replace one of the conservatives and our whole body of established law could well be shredded.

:thatsfunn LOL, straighten Harry Rex out there RV. :biggrin: Obviously he is in error.

[TheRealVille]

:thatsfunn LOL, straighten Harry Rex out there RV. :biggrin: Obviously he is in error.

Let's wait and see if lawsuits get started. I've heard several lawyers say it will open the door. We shall see. If SCOTUS declared DOMA unconstitutional, they most likely would do the same if state lawsuits go that high. Look up the word precedent.

[TheRealThing]

Let's wait and see if lawsuits get started. I've heard several lawyers say it will open the door. We shall see. If SCOTUS declared DOMA unconstitutional, they most likely would do the same if state lawsuits go that high. Look up the word precedent.

Hopefully Harry Rex will see this ^ and look it up, lol. In the meantime, I got two words for you, state sovereignty. If you truly want the federal government to force ideas such as same sex marriage on the American public, you don't understand freedom.

[TheRealThing]

^Which god? Where in any official US document does it mention Jesus? Where, in any official US founding document does it mentio Christianity? How do we know the founders weren't trying to get away from England's Christianity, and found a country on religious freedom, where we get to decide what "god" we serve, individually? Now, there's a thought. Just sayin...


Christians are trying to force your god on the rest of us, through laws. It should be obvious the rest of us aren't going to let it happen.

This country was indeed founded upon Christian principles. Those principles have come under attack in earnest since the ACLU Supreme Court case of Everson versus Board of Education of Ewing Township, in 1947. That is when the worm began to turn. Frankly, you haven't been alive long enough to remember America during her great years. I suppose that is why you would see her smoldering on history's ash heap before you would ever cede any governing power back to conservatives, who knows? At any rate you keep missing the point. America has only diverted away from that Christianity that you keep denying and, which made her so great in the very recent past. I lived in that Christian nation that you deny ever existed so, as you may imagine, every time you try to act all knowledgeable, you actually look ridiculous to those of us who lived in Christian America.

Now, if you want to at least be accurate. You should say that the liberals have managed to sever nearly every surviving tether to the very moral authority on which our law is based, that being God's Holy Word. And that we Christians have sat on our hands watching it happen, baby step by baby step and living in our own state of denial. No, US law never cited chapter and verse but, we certainly understood that our concepts of morality were handed down to man from God's own hand. And, as I have mentioned, now that we seemingly have abandoned the standard on which our law is based, we no longer recognize absolutes. Since morality is no longer based on God's clear and concise Word, it has become subjective to what is perceived as extenuating circumstances in each and every argument that comes before the bench. Without absolutes, we can no longer depend on judges and lawmakers to make right and moral decisions. Instead, what was once clear case law has evolved into a vast wilderness of endless debate. No case is ever really over. And certainly no law is safe from endless reinterpretation and being debated into oblivion. Liberalism has effectively neutered the SCOTUS.

[TheRealVille]

^ Show me the references to Christianity in any founding document.

[TheRealThing]

^ Show me the references to Christianity in any founding document.

I've shown you references and you have "transformed" yourself into the perfect 'willfully ignorant' liberal vacuum tube in the face of that reference every time. You have already stated that nothing will alter your opinion of God's influence on our society. And, as I said, millions lived in Christian America and we likewise will not "allow" folks of your ilk to talk us out of that. That doesn't mean we were ever a theocracy. But the objectionable and foolhardy actions of our courts, making laws which forbid nativity scenes and the like, is absurd. Cultural nfluences and foreign religions from outside our land should have no large scale affect on our people. Take Sharia law for example, and the hundreds of challenges by unethical or misguided lawyers to inject it into our own legal system. We see findings like this one occurring; "A federal appeals court today blocked a measure that would’ve made Oklahoma the first state in the nation to ban the Sharia law in its court system." http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/201...als-court/

Situations like the above suit your palate much better than living in anything closely resembling traditional America though, right? You seem to be excising yourself from the unenlightened crowd of this land which, I guess would put you in good sted with those in power when the new order rises up. I got some news for you. IMO, the Boston Bombers of the world would just as soon blow up your holler with you all in it, as they would a parade route full of other innocents.

[TheRealVille]

Untwisted, thee is no refrence in any document concerning Christianity, or Jesus.


I don't live in a "holler", I live about as much in town as you can get.

[TheRealThing]

Untwisted, thee is no refrence in any document concerning Christianity, or Jesus.

THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"


Now, either the founding fathers were recognizing God here, or they were advocating pantheism by inferring that there are many gods capable of creating men, which of course is absurd on it's face.

[TheRealThing]

Untwisted, thee is no refrence in any document concerning Christianity, or Jesus.


I don't live in a "holler", I live about as much in town as you can get.

Paintsville is a holler. Tucked in between two mountains, lol. AFTR, I like Paintsville.

[TheRealVille]

THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"


Now, either the founding fathers were recognizing God here, or they were advocating pantheism by inferring that there are many gods capable of creating men, which of course is absurd on it's face.

Post #44.

[TheRealVille]

^I'll wait on those references to Christianity, or Jesus, in founding document, or any official US document stating we are a, or ever was, a Christian nation.

BTW, the word creator you speak of in your reference above, is different for you and me. My "creator" isn't the biblical creator.

[TheRealVille]

If DOMA, the federal law that said marriage is between one man and one woman, was found to be unconstitutional on a federal level, it will also be found unconstitutional on a state level. But republicans, look on the bright side, the big court opened the door for racist red states to make it harder for minorities to vote, if they so wish.

[TheRealThing]

Post #44.

You didn't finish the sentence. Here is the ending I would add; "Post #44," is hogswallow.

[TheRealThing]

^I'll wait on those references to Christianity, or Jesus, in founding document, or any official US document stating we are a, or ever was, a Christian nation.

BTW, the word creator you speak of in your reference above, is different for you and me. My "creator" isn't the biblical creator.

LOL, is that so? Perhaps you could enlighten me, how many creators are out there?

[TheRealVille]

^ As far as American citizens go, there are many.