Posted on 09/04/2015 9:18:09 AM PDT by TangledUpInBlue
That is a RELIGIOUS definition.
No one is mandated by government that they must reproduce in order to have a civil marriage.
No one.
Thanks. Now for my follow-up question:
How does this language translate to automatic civil rights for lesbians and sodomites? This defines "men and women" only. Could be two straight women or men doing it for tax credits.
I think the courts should be very clear with their definition. There should be no question about what they are endowing special rights to.
Anything less violates the dignity and rights of straight couples.
You fail to comprehend biology.
You fail to comprehend history.
You reject truth when it is presented to you.
Have a lovely day.
The Court, in its infinite wisdom (*cough* *hack* *choke* *spit*) has decreed that “marriage” has no meaning.
The Court is wrong.
Yeah, I was wondering about that. Thanks for calling it.
I AM TALKING ABOUT BIOLOGY.
Biology doesn’t require that two people be married in order to procreate.
There is no biological prerequisite to be married. The law currently states that any two adults not closely related can get married.
They don’t have to procreate. They don’t have to have sex. All that is required is a desire to be seen in the eye of the law as married.
You’re wrong.
Again.
As I have repeatedly demonstrated.
Have a lovely day.
And the last word.
If you like.
I have said everything on this topic that needs to be said.
“She’s taking a stand against sin”
Sin is not a legal construct, it is a religious one.
I can create false idols and not go to jail. I can worship one besides the Christian God.
Belief in religion is not a civil test in order to get married in a civil ceremony.
The Court, in its infinite wisdom (*cough* *hack* *choke* *spit*) has decreed that “marriage” has no meaning.
The Court is wrong.
___________________________________
Yes, they are very wrong indeed.
Hey, I’m just glad that is acceptable now to condemn women for their immorality.
Perception is not reality. It’s a good lie, but only a desperate idiot believes it.
People change.
[1] And Saul, as yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest, [2] And asked of him letters to Damascus, to the synagogues: that if he found any men and women of this way, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem. [3] And as he went on his journey, it came to pass that he drew nigh to Damascus; and suddenly a light from heaven shined round about him. [4] And falling on the ground, he heard a voice saying to him: Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? [5] Who said: Who art thou, Lord? And he: I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. It is hard for thee to kick against the goad.
[6] And he trembling and astonished, said: Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? [7] And the Lord said to him: Arise, and go into the city, and there it shall be told thee what thou must do. Now the men who went in company with him, stood amazed, hearing indeed a voice, but seeing no man. [8] And Saul arose from the ground; and when his eyes were opened, he saw nothing. But they leading him by the hands, brought him to Damascus. [9] And he was there three days, without sight, and he did neither eat nor drink. [10] Now there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias. And the Lord said to him in a vision: Ananias. And he said: Behold I am here, Lord.
[11] And the Lord said to him: Arise, and go into the street that is called Stait, and seek in the house of Judas, one named Saul of Tarsus. For behold he prayeth. [12] (And he saw a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hands upon him, that he might receive his sight.) [13] But Ananias answered: Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints in Jerusalem. [14] And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that invoke thy name. [15] And the Lord said to him: Go thy way; for this man is to me a vessel of election, to carry my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel.
[16] For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name’ s sake. [17] And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house. And laying his hands upon him, he said: Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus hath sent me, he that appeared to thee in the way as thou camest; that thou mayest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. [18] And immediately there fell from his eyes as it were scales, and he received his sight; and rising up, he was baptized. [19] And when he had taken meat, he was strengthened. And he was with the disciples that were at Damascus, for some days. [20] And immediately he preached Jesus in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.
[21] And all that heard him, were astonished, and said: Is not this he who persecuted in Jerusalem those that called upon this name: and came hither for that intent, that he might carry them bound to the chief priests? [22] But Saul increased much more in strength, and confounded the Jews who dwelt at Damascus, affirming that this is the Christ. [23] And when many days were passed, the Jews consulted together to kill him. [24] But their laying in wait was made known to Saul. And they watched the gates also day and night, that they might kill him. [25] But the disciples taking him in the night, conveyed him away by the wall, letting him down in a basket.
[26] And when he was come into Jerusalem, he essayed to join himself to the disciples; and they all were afraid of him, not believing that he was a disciple. [27] But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and told them how he had seen the Lord, and that he had spoken to him; and how in Damascus he had dealt confidently in the name of Jesus. [28] And he was with them coming in and going out in Jerusalem, and dealing confidently in the name of the Lord. [29] He spoke also to the Gentiles, and disputed with the Greeks; but they sought to kill him. [30] Which when the brethren had known, they brought him down to Caesarea, and sent him away to Tarsus.
The Court was wrong in “Dredd Scott”. We paid in blood for that error.
The Court was wrong in “Wickard v. Filburn”. We continue to pay in blood and lost liberty for that error.
The Court was wrong in “Roe v. Wade” and “Doe v. Bolton”. We continue to pay in blood for those errors.
The Court was wrong in Obergefell ... and we will pay in blood for that error, too.
That’s always been “acceptable”. Re The Scarlet Letter.
It doesn’t carry any legal weight.
How can there be true repentance if you continue a sinful lifestyle?
Jesus Christ defined marriage as a lifelong union between a man and a woman. In Matthew and in Mark, Jesus is quoted as saying that if a man divorces his wife and marries another then he is committing adultery. Same with a woman divorcing her husband and remarrying. So if we can certainly agree that same sex marriage is not a marriage in the Biblical sense of the term then by the same token neither is Kim Davis's current marriage. Or the one before that. Or the one before that.
If it was a prerequisite to be married in order to procreate, there would be millions or perhaps billions of babies, including myself, that never would have been born.
My current marriage had no clerical blessing, as I am not a religious person.
It is a valid marriage. There will be no procreation. It may not align with your personal beliefs, but your personal beliefs are not law.
I highly recommend you not twist my point: as Christian’s we are called to reject sin.
No one is twisting your point. Is your comment a threat?
You don’t get the point so move along.
Jesus Christ defined marriage as a lifelong union between a man and a woman. In Matthew and in Mark, Jesus is quoted as saying that if a man divorces his wife and marries another then he is committing adultery. Same with a woman divorcing her husband and remarrying. So if we can certainly agree that same sex marriage is not a marriage in the Biblical sense of the term then by the same token neither is Kim Davis's current marriage. Or the one before that. Or the one before that.
________________________________
Sinner that she is, guess she'll never be able to take a stand on faith, why is she even bothering?
Why do any of us bother trying to move on from our sinful lives? None of us is free of any sin, we sin daily! We are caught in the flesh with no escape! Oh why, oh why hasn't God sent us a Savior!? /s
P.S. I seem to remember one of the Apostles actually persecuted Christians..
She was not a Christian until 2011/12ish. Her last divorce was 2008.
So she is guilty of being a hypocrite because while she lived an athiest she did not follow the Bible?
How is this crap any different than ricky who got zotted?
My point is she would without question issue a license to one or both who did not bibically divorce and then remarried. They would be living in adultery until that ended. I'm not a scholar, but don't you have to stop sinning in order to repent? Would that mean ending an adulterous marriage? Scripture doesn't address that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.