U.s. Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marriage In Every State Options

[jstcrsn]

Should a minister be "forced" I'd say no No matter what the "law" says, a minister still has the choice to marry or not marry anyone he likes. Civil disobedience is a good thing IMHO. However, ministers that won't marry gay couples honestly need to read a bit deeper on the scriptures IMHO. Jesus didn't people himself with what we would think of as "good people" instead, he hung out with "tax collectors", "harlots", "zealots", "leppers", etc. In his example, his action show that judgement belongs only to the Father above. For us here on this hunk of rock spinning around the sun, all the really matters is acceptance and forgiveness. That's the core of Christian faith that seems to have been lost over the hundreds of years since the Nazarene himself (Jesus) lead by example. I consider myself a modern Gnostic in the same spiritual line of the Essene/Nazarene faith as it transitioned from the legalism of Jewish practice to the personal relationship with God that Jesus tried to share with anyone who'd listen.

I think you are reading to much into this ruling. A minister is not being civilly disobedient by not marrying a gay couple( not yet any way). There are special freedoms within the construct of the first amendment that allow religions to have guidelines for their faith , otherwise a Jewish Rabi would have to marry Muslims, or a Muslim holy man would have to marry Christians or the Pope marry outside of his faith. In these same guidelines it is nit civilly disobedient to turn a couple down that don't meet that faith's criteria.

As far as an Agnostic cherry picking parts of the Bible to make his point- As a parent many times my kids want to do things I know in the end will hurt them (even though there will be immediate benefits)A loving father says "no" because of the the Love ,even thought some on the outside might think it's mean to deny your kid that.
if you are going to use the Bible for reference( Read it as a whole),He told the crowd "let those without sin to cast the stone", but he also told the women to" go and sin no more"

You are at GuitarMasterClass.net

Don't miss today's free lick. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

Don't miss today's free blues, jazz & country licks. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

This post has been edited by jstcrsn: Jul 12 2015, 01:44 PM

[Todd Simpson]

just for reference, I"m not "Agnositic" I"m "Gnostic". It comes form a greek work Gnosis that means a sort of Internal Knowing beyond "knowledge". It's now a very small sect as most of them were burned at the stake for being heretics. That's me I've read the bible cover to cover more than once so I'm quite well versed in scripture including the Apocrypha. I"m working through the dead sea scrolls now. So I'm pretty up on scripture

CRSN: Mistranslation of "Go and Sin No more"
In the original Greek, the scripture actually translates as "Go and be free from Sin". Christ knows it's impossible to live without sin which is why he is here. To provide a path of salvation. The "King James" version of course, has it wrong per usual.

I love how these thread can go from one topic to another and end up on theology What other guitar site can say that?

As you guys may know, I"m a bit of a "Metal Head" and a "Proud Southerner". As such, people are often taken aback when my "progressive" neo-libertarianish views come out. Like many people, I can trace it back to how I was raised. My mother is one of the most accepting and open minded people I"ve ever known and she imparted that to her children. To always accept others as they are and not as you wish they were. Now that she has cancer I know that the world will be a darker place without her. But her teachings and thoughts will live on though me and hopefully through as many people as I can manage to teach and impact on my own

I think you are reading to much into this ruling. A minister is not being civilly disobedient by not marrying a gay couple( not yet any way). There are special freedoms within the construct of the first amendment that allow religions to have guidelines for their faith , otherwise a Jewish Rabi would have to marry Muslims, or a Muslim holy man would have to marry Christians or the Pope marry outside of his faith. In these same guidelines it is nit civilly disobedient to turn a couple down that don't meet that faith's criteria.

As far as an Agnostic cherry picking parts of the Bible to make his point- As a parent many times my kids want to do things I know in the end will hurt them (even though there will be immediate benefits)A loving father says "no" because of the the Love ,even thought some on the outside might think it's mean to deny your kid that.
if you are going to use the Bible for reference( Read it as a whole),He told the crowd "let those without sin to cast the stone", but he also told the women to" go and sin no more"

You are at GuitarMasterClass.net

Don't miss today's free lick. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

Don't miss today's free blues, jazz & country licks. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

This post has been edited by Todd Simpson: Jul 12 2015, 10:21 PM

[jstcrsn]

just for reference, I"m not "Agnositic" I"m "Gnostic". It comes form a greek work Gnosis that means a sort of Internal Knowing beyond "knowledge

my apologies on the misread,hey , I am human too

You are at GuitarMasterClass.net

Don't miss today's free lick. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

Don't miss today's free blues, jazz & country licks. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

[jstcrsn]

CRSN: Mistranslation of "Go and Sin No more"
In the original Greek, the scripture actually translates as "Go and be free from Sin".

I like that translation equally as well. How can you be free from something you continually "swim" in

You are at GuitarMasterClass.net

Don't miss today's free lick. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

Don't miss today's free blues, jazz & country licks. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

[Todd Simpson]

Great question! The only way to be "free" from sin is to follow a path of salvation (according to Gnostic understanding of scripture). We can't stop sinning. We can only hope to forgiven

I like that translation equally as well. How can you be free from something you continually "swim" in

No worries The Gnostic path is so small and obscure these days that some consider it a Christian Cult So the word gnostic is often taken for agnostic just because they are so similar and Gnostic isn't widely used.

my apologies on the misread,hey , I am human too

You are at GuitarMasterClass.net

Don't miss today's free lick. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

Don't miss today's free blues, jazz & country licks. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

[Todd Simpson]

Sorry for the lag, just saw this. Gay couples can have children It's a process called "Adoption". Thus making them a "Family" Which entitles them to the same "money grab" that straights get to do right? Seems only fair.

If a gay couple adopts a child, how does that put them on the "undeserving list"? Are they undeserving because they are gay? Is that it?

Also, what about straight couples that don't have kids? Are they "undeserving" as well?

Who are you defining as the "deserving"? Just hetero couples with kids?

It is not about Billy and Tony doing the ceremony. It is a money grab for entitlements, public and private. And America bought it hook line and sinker.

If children were involved I would not object to that so much. But for the most part they won't be. Homosexual couples now will be getting financial benefits both public and private who in now way really merit these, where there is no real justification for it. Marriage benefits have always been rooted in supporting children, not for the couple itself. Yes many married couple have had no children and still reaped financial benefits, but that does not mean it is a great thing to now extend the pool of undeserving who are now on the payout list.

Bottom line, in both the public and private sector, single people are going to be the ones subsidizing the entitlements. Money does not grow on trees. Everybody has to pay their share for these things, in the form of higher taxes and lower wages. But single people will have to pay for them, and they will get nothing back in return. If you are single and you are happy with this, you are more pleased with handing your money out to the undeserving than I am.

I agree I must say I've been a bit saddened reading some of the posts here @ GMC which seem to be filled with a pinch of animosity toward folks who just happen to Gay and want to get married. I"m proud as punch that the Supreme Court finally said out loud that, yes, just because your gay, doesn't meant you aren't entitled to the same rights as the "Straights". In fact, they are entitled. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. There isn't a clause that excludes gay folks.

Well this sounds like a great step in the right direction.

With all the antagonism gay people have to live with, I can imagine this must be a relief.

You are at GuitarMasterClass.net

Don't miss today's free lick. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

Don't miss today's free blues, jazz & country licks. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

[Marek Rojewski]

There is enough research (also known as evidence) that children living in "homo-families" have many problems associated with it, and that generally it is a bad idea to allow such adoption. It should be a "last hope" situation, and even than maybe bad idea.

Coming back from fairy land to planet Earth, even considering that having two fathers or two mothers is a good thing for a child, points to some kind of mental disorder. Sometimes it may work, but there are many other things that could work better that are illegal (for example incest).

I don't care about gay pursuit of happiness, leave them kids alone. Their urge to have children is as important as a psycho urge to kill. Both should be ignored, or countered if necessary.

You are at GuitarMasterClass.net

Don't miss today's free lick. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

Don't miss today's free blues, jazz & country licks. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

[Mertay]

I don't care about gay pursuit of happiness, leave them kids alone.

The kid's we mention should be noted to be unwanted in the first place, there are worse things for them (most too horrible to be even mention) compared to be raised by a gay couple specially if left alone...

Their urge to have children is as important as a psycho urge to kill. Both should be ignored, or countered if necessary.

There are good things in human nature we cherish and bad we try to control/evolve, why do they have to be the same thing? or is this comment only for married gay couples?

You are at GuitarMasterClass.net

Don't miss today's free lick. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

Don't miss today's free blues, jazz & country licks. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

This post has been edited by Mertay: Jul 18 2015, 02:46 PM

[Todd Simpson]

I have great respect for everyone and their thoughts However, maybe you could link us to some of this "Research" that you are using to make your point here? Of course one could say the exact reverse thing, and not include any evidence and it would be equally with/without merit. See my point?

So you are saying incest is preferable to gay couples with kids? Seems a bit extreme? If gay couples want kids, especially unwanted orphans, seems like a good thing to me But then again I"m not against gay couple, or gay families. I"m a straight but I don't oppose those folks that were born "un straight" After all they do have the same rights that we straights do Right?

I am assuming here, of course, that Gay folks do have the same rights as straight folks and that Gay people should be "accepted" the same way straight people are. However, here is a quick graphic to show what one poll (just one poll mind you, not written by God, or in Stone, or any sort of ultimate truth) showed in terms of global "acceptance" of non-straight folks

There is enough research (also known as evidence) that children living in "homo-families" have many problems associated with it, and that generally it is a bad idea to allow such adoption. It should be a "last hope" situation, and even than maybe bad idea.

Coming back from fairy land to planet Earth, even considering that having two fathers or two mothers is a good thing for a child, points to some kind of mental disorder. Sometimes it may work, but there are many other things that could work better that are illegal (for example incest).

I don't care about gay pursuit of happiness, leave them kids alone. Their urge to have children is as important as a psycho urge to kill. Both should be ignored, or countered if necessary.

You are at GuitarMasterClass.net

Don't miss today's free lick. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

Don't miss today's free blues, jazz & country licks. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

This post has been edited by Todd Simpson: Jul 21 2015, 01:05 AM

[Marek Rojewski]

As previous, discussion is unfortunately "bit pointless" because in a world where you can order and pay for research, there is always a "research" contradicting another research.

I was interested in that topic some time ago, and from my and my girlfriends knowledge (and she studied how to evaluate the way research was conducted) research suggesting that same sex parenting is inferior proved to be conducted in a more professional way than the quasi research of the LBGT movement.

Here are three links:

http://www.terpconnect.umd.edu/~pnc/allen-ss-grad.pdf

http://www.ionainstitute.eu/pdfs/1-s2.0-S0...000610-main.pdf

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2500537

I am more familiar with my own language articles about this topic, co can't provide more.


What I think about the whole thing:

First of all, I am an evil "libertarian". I think the government should not be interested in private stuff. That means that in general I would not forbid same sex couples to marry or to adopt children, because I deny the government the power to do so. It is a matter between private people, if someone wants to "get rid off" a child, and someone wants to adopt it it is "okay".

BUT - we live in a pathetic world of social government, where people are treated like retards that can't decide for themselves. The government wants to decide in our name, and "take care" of us. In this pathological situation I demand proper "taking care of". And by that I understand better solving of a "unwanted children" problem than giving them to the inferior (for the good of the child) same sex couples. Build "super orphanages" or (now you may take a seat because I will write something very controversial) introduce "child permissions" - if you don't meet certain criteria, don't pass a special exam, are to lazy and stupid to have children, than you are not allowed to have them. If you won't respect the law, you pay big fines, or just straight out go to jail or work camp.

It is a simple choice between freedom and slavery. I want freedom, but if I am to live in a place where decisions are made somewhere else, let those decisions be decisive and wise, not politically correct...

You are at GuitarMasterClass.net

Don't miss today's free lick. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

Don't miss today's free blues, jazz & country licks. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

[Phil66]

I'd rather a child be loved by a same sex couple than unloved by a non same sex couple. Given the choice of the child being with loving parents of either same sex or non same sex I would first go with the child being with both loving biological parents, after that I have no preference other than a loving supportive home.

You are at GuitarMasterClass.net

Don't miss today's free lick. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

Don't miss today's free blues, jazz & country licks. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

[Todd Simpson]

I'm an Evil Libertarian as well I"m glad to read that we are on the same page about folks that want to start families being able to and it not being the govt's business. sadly in our country, the Govt has stuck their hand in for quite some time to make folks born 'non-straight" to be a bit "less than" in terms of their civil liberties and basic rights including marriage. It's really quite shameful that it's taken this long for the supreme court to recognize that if folks wanna marry, the govt should give them all the same treatment, gay or straight.

I read some of the research and it did agree with your point that same sex kids have a harder time in general. I have seen this with my own eyes actually with a lesbian couple who had a child. During it's early school years, the child "invented" a father figure since everyone else at school had one. He made up a name, job, hobbies and this fake dad was very real for the kid. TO be sure, raising a child with two moms or two dads presents it own issues. Then again raising children in general presents issues. Back to the govt. I think they should stay out of it in terms of telling people they can't have an adopted child. If a non straight couple wants to adopt, I say go for it. I don't want kids myself, but some folks do, so gay or straight, they should be able to have them or adopt them or whatever works for them

In the end i think we are closer on views that I originally thought

As previous, discussion is unfortunately "bit pointless" because in a world where you can order and pay for research, there is always a "research" contradicting another research.

I was interested in that topic some time ago, and from my and my girlfriends knowledge (and she studied how to evaluate the way research was conducted) research suggesting that same sex parenting is inferior proved to be conducted in a more professional way than the quasi research of the LBGT movement.

Here are three links:

http://www.terpconnect.umd.edu/~pnc/allen-ss-grad.pdf

http://www.ionainstitute.eu/pdfs/1-s2.0-S0...000610-main.pdf

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2500537

I am more familiar with my own language articles about this topic, co can't provide more.


What I think about the whole thing:

First of all, I am an evil "libertarian". I think the government should not be interested in private stuff. That means that in general I would not forbid same sex couples to marry or to adopt children, because I deny the government the power to do so. It is a matter between private people, if someone wants to "get rid off" a child, and someone wants to adopt it it is "okay".

BUT - we live in a pathetic world of social government, where people are treated like retards that can't decide for themselves. The government wants to decide in our name, and "take care" of us. In this pathological situation I demand proper "taking care of". And by that I understand better solving of a "unwanted children" problem than giving them to the inferior (for the good of the child) same sex couples. Build "super orphanages" or (now you may take a seat because I will write something very controversial) introduce "child permissions" - if you don't meet certain criteria, don't pass a special exam, are to lazy and stupid to have children, than you are not allowed to have them. If you won't respect the law, you pay big fines, or just straight out go to jail or work camp.

It is a simple choice between freedom and slavery. I want freedom, but if I am to live in a place where decisions are made somewhere else, let those decisions be decisive and wise, not politically correct...

You are at GuitarMasterClass.net

Don't miss today's free lick. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

Don't miss today's free blues, jazz & country licks. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!