And so it begins in the ultra conservative State of South Carolina

[Billy]

http://www.wistv.com/story/27425985/wedding-ceremony-held-outside-courthouse-for-same-sex-couple

 

[ALAYMAN]

http://www.wistv.com/story/27425985/wedding-ceremony-held-outside-courthouse-for-same-sex-couple

Rom 1:16  For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
Rom 1:17  For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
Rom 1:18  For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Rom 1:19  Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
Rom 1:20  For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Rom 1:21  Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Rom 1:22  Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23  And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Rom 1:24  Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Rom 1:25  Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Rom 1:26  For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

 

[samspade]

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Just thought we should see the rest of the chapter. 

 

[ALAYMAN]

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Just thought we should see the rest of the chapter. 

An apt descriptional portrait for those Gamecocks eh?








<good morning Chief-Billy>

 

[Billy]

All excellent verses....not sure what they have to do with civil marriages in South Carolina, but all great verses.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=samspade{Just thought we should see the rest of the chapter.  [/quote]

I was copying it add you were posting it apparently! 

 

[Billy]

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Just thought we should see the rest of the chapter. 

An apt descriptional portrait for those Gamecocks eh?








<good morning Chief-Billy>

Typical IFBxer...hating on my fighting chickens!

Morning Chief.

 

[ALAYMAN]

All excellent verses....not sure what they have to do with civil marriages in South Carolina, but all great verses.

Ravi Zacharias- “What you applaud you encourage, but beware what you celebrate....These days its not just that the line between right and wrong has been made unclear, today Christians are being asked by our culture today to erase the lines and move the fences, and if that were not bad enough, we are being asked to join in the celebration cry by those who have thrown off the restraints religion had imposed upon them. It is not just that they ask we accept, but they now demand of us to celebrate it too.” 
http://www.fundamentalforums.org/the-fighting-forum/be-careful-what-you-celebrate/

 

[Billy]

The issue for me isn't if homosexuality is a sin...Bible is pretty clear even though there aren't a tremedous amount of verses on the subject.  It isn't that the NT Testament isn't clear that marriage is between a man and a woman.  The OT accounts on marriage are horrible examples for what a marriage is according to our cultural norms. 

So, what is marriage in the good ole USA?  It's a contract plain and simple.

 

[subllibrm]

The issue for me isn't if homosexuality is a sin...Bible is pretty clear even though there aren't a tremedous amount of verses on the subject.  It isn't that the NT Testament isn't clear that marriage is between a man and a woman.  The OT accounts on marriage are horrible examples for what a marriage is according to our cultural norms. 

So, what is marriage in the good ole USA?  It's a contract plain and simple.

But civil unions aren't good enough?

There is a distinct "poke in the eye" subplot (and maybe not so sub) to all of this. Agenda if you will.

 

[Billy]

The issue for me isn't if homosexuality is a sin...Bible is pretty clear even though there aren't a tremedous amount of verses on the subject.  It isn't that the NT Testament isn't clear that marriage is between a man and a woman.  The OT accounts on marriage are horrible examples for what a marriage is according to our cultural norms. 

So, what is marriage in the good ole USA?  It's a contract plain and simple.

But civil unions aren't good enough?

There is a distinct "poke in the eye" subplot (and maybe not so sub) to all of this. Agenda if you will.

I agree...it's just the somewhat Libertarian in me thinks that they should have the freedom to marry.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

The issue for me isn't if homosexuality is a sin...Bible is pretty clear even though there aren't a tremedous amount of verses on the subject.  It isn't that the NT Testament isn't clear that marriage is between a man and a woman.  The OT accounts on marriage are horrible examples for what a marriage is according to our cultural norms. 

So, what is marriage in the good ole USA?  It's a contract plain and simple.

But civil unions aren't good enough?

There is a distinct "poke in the eye" subplot (and maybe not so sub) to all of this. Agenda if you will.

I agree...it's just the somewhat Libertarian in me thinks that they should have the freedom to marry.

Gay marriage isn't about gay marriage! 

 

[Smellin Coffee]

The issue for me isn't if homosexuality is a sin...Bible is pretty clear even though there aren't a tremedous amount of verses on the subject.  It isn't that the NT Testament isn't clear that marriage is between a man and a woman.  The OT accounts on marriage are horrible examples for what a marriage is according to our cultural norms. 

So, what is marriage in the good ole USA?  It's a contract plain and simple.

But civil unions aren't good enough?

There is a distinct "poke in the eye" subplot (and maybe not so sub) to all of this. Agenda if you will.

I agree...it's just the somewhat Libertarian in me thinks that they should have the freedom to marry.

Silly you. America is a Christian nation, a theocracy!

 

[Billy]

The issue for me isn't if homosexuality is a sin...Bible is pretty clear even though there aren't a tremedous amount of verses on the subject.  It isn't that the NT Testament isn't clear that marriage is between a man and a woman.  The OT accounts on marriage are horrible examples for what a marriage is according to our cultural norms. 

So, what is marriage in the good ole USA?  It's a contract plain and simple.

But civil unions aren't good enough?

There is a distinct "poke in the eye" subplot (and maybe not so sub) to all of this. Agenda if you will.

I agree...it's just the somewhat Libertarian in me thinks that they should have the freedom to marry.

Gay marriage isn't about gay marriage! 

I can agree with that too.....

What about insurance, benefits, retirement, stability, family structure, acceptance as humans, and last but certainly not least the constitution of the United States.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

The issue for me isn't if homosexuality is a sin...Bible is pretty clear even though there aren't a tremedous amount of verses on the subject.  It isn't that the NT Testament isn't clear that marriage is between a man and a woman.  The OT accounts on marriage are horrible examples for what a marriage is according to our cultural norms. 

So, what is marriage in the good ole USA?  It's a contract plain and simple.

But civil unions aren't good enough?

There is a distinct "poke in the eye" subplot (and maybe not so sub) to all of this. Agenda if you will.

I agree...it's just the somewhat Libertarian in me thinks that they should have the freedom to marry.

Gay marriage isn't about gay marriage! 

I can agree with that too.....

What about insurance, benefits, retirement, stability, family structure, acceptance as humans, and last but certainly not least the constitution of the United States.

Your point is 'moot'...gay marriage is legal for all practical purposes.

The questions now are (among others):
Should your Pastor be required to perform gay marriages?
Should your church be required to be used for gay marriage ceremonies?
Should photographers be required to photograph gay weddings?
Should bakers be required to bake wedding cakes for gay marriage receptions?

 

[Billy]

The issue for me isn't if homosexuality is a sin...Bible is pretty clear even though there aren't a tremedous amount of verses on the subject.  It isn't that the NT Testament isn't clear that marriage is between a man and a woman.  The OT accounts on marriage are horrible examples for what a marriage is according to our cultural norms. 

So, what is marriage in the good ole USA?  It's a contract plain and simple.

But civil unions aren't good enough?

There is a distinct "poke in the eye" subplot (and maybe not so sub) to all of this. Agenda if you will.

I agree...it's just the somewhat Libertarian in me thinks that they should have the freedom to marry.

Gay marriage isn't about gay marriage! 

I can agree with that too.....

What about insurance, benefits, retirement, stability, family structure, acceptance as humans, and last but certainly not least the constitution of the United States.

Your point is 'moot'...gay marriage is legal for all practical purposes.

The questions now are (among others):
Should your Pastor be required to perform gay marriages?
Should your church be required to be used for gay marriage ceremonies?
Should photographers be required to photograph gay weddings?
Should bakers be required to bake wedding cakes for gay marriage receptions?

1.  No
2.  No
3.  Not sure...leaning towards yes
4.  Yes

What would the answers to 3 & 4 be if we took out gay and inserted black?

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Should your Pastor be required to perform gay marriages? No

Should your church be required to be used for gay marriage ceremonies? No

Should photographers be required to photograph gay weddings? No

Should bakers be required to bake wedding cakes for gay marriage receptions? No

I would say the same thing if it was involving Americans marrying, say, Asians. Or Mexicans marrying Canadians. Each business should be able to conduct business as he/she chooses as long as it doesn't harm others. Denial is not necessarily harm.

 

[rsc2a]

Should your Pastor be required to perform gay marriages? No

Should your church be required to be used for gay marriage ceremonies? No

Should photographers be required to photograph gay weddings? No

Should bakers be required to bake wedding cakes for gay marriage receptions? No

I would say the same thing if it was involving Americans marrying, say, Asians. Or Mexicans marrying Canadians. Each business should be able to conduct business as he/she chooses as long as it doesn't harm others. Denial is not necessarily harm.

This.

 

[kaba]

The issue for me isn't if homosexuality is a sin...Bible is pretty clear even though there aren't a tremedous amount of verses on the subject.  It isn't that the NT Testament isn't clear that marriage is between a man and a woman.  The OT accounts on marriage are horrible examples for what a marriage is according to our cultural norms. 

So, what is marriage in the good ole USA?  It's a contract plain and simple.

But civil unions aren't good enough?

There is a distinct "poke in the eye" subplot (and maybe not so sub) to all of this. Agenda if you will.

I agree...it's just the somewhat Libertarian in me thinks that they should have the freedom to marry.

Gay marriage isn't about gay marriage! 

I can agree with that too.....

What about insurance, benefits, retirement, stability, family structure, acceptance as humans, and last but certainly not least the constitution of the United States.

Your point is 'moot'...gay marriage is legal for all practical purposes.

The questions now are (among others):
Should your Pastor be required to perform gay marriages?
Should your church be required to be used for gay marriage ceremonies?
Should photographers be required to photograph gay weddings?
Should bakers be required to bake wedding cakes for gay marriage receptions?

NO
NO
NO
NO

 

[subllibrm]

The issue for me isn't if homosexuality is a sin...Bible is pretty clear even though there aren't a tremedous amount of verses on the subject.  It isn't that the NT Testament isn't clear that marriage is between a man and a woman.  The OT accounts on marriage are horrible examples for what a marriage is according to our cultural norms. 

So, what is marriage in the good ole USA?  It's a contract plain and simple.

But civil unions aren't good enough?

There is a distinct "poke in the eye" subplot (and maybe not so sub) to all of this. Agenda if you will.

I agree...it's just the somewhat Libertarian in me thinks that they should have the freedom to marry.

Gay marriage isn't about gay marriage! 

I can agree with that too.....

What about insurance, benefits, retirement, stability, family structure, acceptance as humans, and last but certainly not least the constitution of the United States.

Your point is 'moot'...gay marriage is legal for all practical purposes.

The questions now are (among others):
Should your Pastor be required to perform gay marriages?
Should your church be required to be used for gay marriage ceremonies?
Should photographers be required to photograph gay weddings?
Should bakers be required to bake wedding cakes for gay marriage receptions?

1.  No
2.  No
3.  Not sure...leaning towards yes
4.  Yes

What would the answers to 3 & 4 be if we took out gay and inserted black?

Sorry Billy but the moral equivalence argument doesn't hold up. Black is a state of being (and same sex attraction is as well) but two men getting married is an action. An action with a whole host of moral implications and by extension messages related to those moral issues.

In all of the cases that have come to light, the "customer" went looking for a business that would deny them service. Their intent isn't to buy a cake or a photo album. There is no shortage of "tolerant" bakers or photographers available and willing to provide the service take their money. Their purpose is to force another person to participate in an ACTION, full well knowing that it goes against that person's beliefs. If the wedding industry as a whole were to red-line same sex "marriage" then there may be some grievance. But since each of these stories is also followed by other companies falling all over themselves to provide the "denied" service, there is no harm to anyone.

If Bob the baker is asked to write "Congratulations Tom & Frank on Your Blessed Event" and it flies in the face of what he believes to be morally correct, then he should have the right to defer and refer to another baker. How is anyone harmed by Bob desiring to not be involved?

Furthermore, the lunch counter, drinking fountain analogy will not hold up either. Those were the law. The owner of the diner didn't have the option of serving blacks even if he wanted to (which since money talks I assume some would have). Remember, they were called Jim Crow LAWS. If the law made it a crime for a baker to make the cake then you would have something analogous to work with.