The Red State War On Gay Marriage

[martybegan]

Then how on earth did all those bigots of yore manage to use the bible to justify anti miscegenation laws?

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix" ~ Judge Leon Brazile 1959 anti-miscegenation ruling.

"...moral or social equality between the different races...does not in fact exist, and never can. The God of nature made it otherwise, and no human law can produce it, and no human tribunal can enforce it. There are gradations and classes throughout the universe. From the tallest archangel in Heaven, down to the meanest reptile on earth, moral and social inequalities exist, and must continue to exist throughout all eternity." ~ 1869 Georgia Supreme Court Ruling

And how about this gem from Bob Jones University?

God has separated people for His own purpose. He has erected barriers between the nations, not only land and sea barriers, but also ethnic, cultural, and language barriers. God has made people different one from another and intends those differences to remain.. Bob Jones University is opposed to intermarriage of the races because it breaks down the barriers God has established. It mixes that which God separated and intends to keep separate. Every effort in world history to bring the world together has demonstrated man’s self-reliance and his unwillingness to remain as God ordains. The attempts at one-worldism have been to devise a system without God and have fostered the promotion of a unity designed to give the world strength so that God is not needed and can be overthrown.

Although there is no verse in the Bible that dogmatically says that races should not intermarry, the whole plan of God as He has dealt with the races down through the ages indicates that interracial marriage is not best for man. We do believe we see principles, not specific verses, to give us direction for the avoidance of it.

The people who built the Tower of Babel were seeking a man-glorifying unity which God has not ordained (Gen. 11:4-6). Much of the agitation for intermarriage among the races today is for the same reason. It is promoted by one-worlders, and we oppose it for the same reason that we oppose religious ecumenism, globalism, one-world economy, one-world police force, unisex, etc. When Jesus Christ returns to the earth, He will establish world unity, but until then, a divided earth seems to be His plan.​

“Let them marry to whom they think best; only to the family of the tribe of their father shall they marry.” Num. 36:6.

“Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For they will turn away thy son from following Me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the Lord be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.” Deut. 7:3,4.

Using scripture to justify racism was probably one of the dumbest things ever done, and it was done by southerners in response to the religious based abolitionism coming from New England. The Southerners saw themselves as pious folks, and obviously being called sinners rankled them. Thus they went out of their way to find reasons why racism and slavery were not only OK, but were part of the natural order.

There is no scriptural basis for racism. There is however plenty of scriptural basis to consider homosexual acts sinful.

Um there is, I just pointed the scripture and how it was used, even in judicial rulings.

Yeah, those guys that used the bible to justify slavery, segregation and anti miscegenation...they were bigots, but not the folk that use the bible to justify their anti gay bigotry...nah, they're "righteous".

Sorry, but there's no difference between the bigots against interracial marriage and the bigots opposed to marriage equality for gays. Only the signs have changed.

Wrong, wrong wrong. All 3 major monotheistic religions have explicit condemnations of homosexual acts. None of these religions support not being racist as a sin.

With the attempts to support racism via the bible, the southerners back then used a classic progressive thought process. They had their belief and then tried to make what information they had fit that belief. when it comes to homosexuality that is not needed, as the documents CLEARLY proscribe against it.

 

[Seawytch]

Using scripture to justify racism was probably one of the dumbest things ever done, and it was done by southerners in response to the religious based abolitionism coming from New England. The Southerners saw themselves as pious folks, and obviously being called sinners rankled them. Thus they went out of their way to find reasons why racism and slavery were not only OK, but were part of the natural order.

There is no scriptural basis for racism. There is however plenty of scriptural basis to consider homosexual acts sinful.

Um there is, I just pointed the scripture and how it was used, even in judicial rulings.

Yeah, those guys that used the bible to justify slavery, segregation and anti miscegenation...they were bigots, but not the folk that use the bible to justify their anti gay bigotry...nah, they're "righteous".

Sorry, but there's no difference between the bigots against interracial marriage and the bigots opposed to marriage equality for gays. Only the signs have changed.

Wrong, wrong wrong. All 3 major monotheistic religions have explicit condemnations of homosexual acts. None of these religions support not being racist as a sin.

With the attempts to support racism via the bible, the southerners back then used a classic progressive thought process. They had their belief and then tried to make what information they had fit that belief. when it comes to homosexuality that is not needed, as the documents CLEARLY proscribe against it.

...those bigots were wrong, but I'm not! Yeah, right....

So eerily similar...

History News Network: Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation

 

[Seawytch]

Why Gay Marriage Really Is Like Interracial Marriage

Natural Law

Anti-miscegenation argument:

Connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them should be prohibited by positive law and be subject to no evasion. (Virginia Supreme Court ruling, 1878)

Anti-gay-marriage argument:

There are some truths that are in fact eternal and based on nature and nature's law. And that's what the church teaches and that's what the Bible teaches and that's what reason dictates. (Rick Santorum on CNN, 2011)

 

[martybegan]

Um there is, I just pointed the scripture and how it was used, even in judicial rulings.

Yeah, those guys that used the bible to justify slavery, segregation and anti miscegenation...they were bigots, but not the folk that use the bible to justify their anti gay bigotry...nah, they're "righteous".

Sorry, but there's no difference between the bigots against interracial marriage and the bigots opposed to marriage equality for gays. Only the signs have changed.

Wrong, wrong wrong. All 3 major monotheistic religions have explicit condemnations of homosexual acts. None of these religions support not being racist as a sin.

With the attempts to support racism via the bible, the southerners back then used a classic progressive thought process. They had their belief and then tried to make what information they had fit that belief. when it comes to homosexuality that is not needed, as the documents CLEARLY proscribe against it.

...those bigots were wrong, but I'm not! Yeah, right....

So eerily similar...

History News Network: Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation

I'm not a bigot. If Same sex marriage is passed by State legislatures I'm fine with it, and would probably vote for it. It is not, however some Constitutional right to be forced on people by judicial fiat.

 

[martybegan]

Why Gay Marriage Really Is Like Interracial Marriage

Natural Law

Anti-miscegenation argument:

Connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them should be prohibited by positive law and be subject to no evasion. (Virginia Supreme Court ruling, 1878)

Anti-gay-marriage argument:

There are some truths that are in fact eternal and based on nature and nature's law. And that's what the church teaches and that's what the Bible teaches and that's what reason dictates. (Rick Santorum on CNN, 2011)

That's a lot of copy pasting for not much relevant content.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

So now it's religious rights vs civil liberties... ok. Carry on.







Religious freedom used to chip away at LGBT rights | MSNBC

With court victories everywhere from Virginia to Utah, LGBT rights activists seem to be winning the fight over same-sex marriage. Yet even as same-sex couples celebrate hard-won victories, conservative activists in states all over the country are pushing back – sponsoring legislation that would allow businesses to discriminate against same sex couples.

Washington already exempts reliigous organizations (churches etc.) from having to perform gay weddings. Seems a fair and sensible thing. If a business is primarily a reliigous entity give them an exemption. Especially if doing so affords LGBT the right to marry there. Why would you wanna marry at a religious entity who condemns you anyway? I mean for fun sure.

 

[Seawytch]

Oh, it's very relevant. It points out how eerily similar the "arguments" are...and how they are also doomed to fail just like anti-miscegenation. (in the courts)

 

[Seawytch]

So now it's religious rights vs civil liberties... ok. Carry on.







Religious freedom used to chip away at LGBT rights | MSNBC

With court victories everywhere from Virginia to Utah, LGBT rights activists seem to be winning the fight over same-sex marriage. Yet even as same-sex couples celebrate hard-won victories, conservative activists in states all over the country are pushing back – sponsoring legislation that would allow businesses to discriminate against same sex couples.

Washington already exempts reliigous organizations (churches etc.) from having to perform gay weddings. Seems a fair and sensible thing. If a business is primarily a reliigous entity give them an exemption. Especially if doing so affords LGBT the right to marry there. Why would you wanna marry at a religious entity who condemns you anyway? I mean for fun sure.

A church will never be forced to perform a ceremony against their will.

 

[Katzndogz]

Public accommodation laws protect a gay's right to walk into a bakery and buy a cake. They should not be extended to forcing the baker to perform a personal service like baking a specific cake for them.

The answer really is to stop baking wedding cakes for the public and only upon private agreement. A gay couple goes into a bakery wanting a wedding cake and the answer is "Sorry we don't make wedding cakes"

 

[martybegan]

So now it's religious rights vs civil liberties... ok. Carry on.







Religious freedom used to chip away at LGBT rights | MSNBC

Washington already exempts reliigous organizations (churches etc.) from having to perform gay weddings. Seems a fair and sensible thing. If a business is primarily a reliigous entity give them an exemption. Especially if doing so affords LGBT the right to marry there. Why would you wanna marry at a religious entity who condemns you anyway? I mean for fun sure.

A church will never be forced to perform a ceremony against their will.

Will you give me 10,000 to one odds on that?

 

[martybegan]

Oh, it's very relevant. It points out how eerily similar the "arguments" are...and how they are also doomed to fail just like anti-miscegenation. (in the courts)

The only similarity is it involves marriage. After that the comparison ends in your mind.

 

[jknowgood]

So now it's religious rights vs civil liberties... ok. Carry on.

they always claim that is the issue. it isn't.

they don't have a religious right to deny others' THEIR rights.

but they'll figure it out.

Just like you all think it's your right to FORCE your views and bakers to bake cakes for people

scratch a liberal find a fascist

If i were the baker i would put two pregnant men holding hands, and write, this is how absurd this lifeslye is.

 

[Seawytch]

Washington already exempts reliigous organizations (churches etc.) from having to perform gay weddings. Seems a fair and sensible thing. If a business is primarily a reliigous entity give them an exemption. Especially if doing so affords LGBT the right to marry there. Why would you wanna marry at a religious entity who condemns you anyway? I mean for fun sure.

A church will never be forced to perform a ceremony against their will.

Will you give me 10,000 to one odds on that?

Yes. No church will ever be forced (by law...public opinion is a different matter) to accept members or perform a marriage ceremony...just as they NEVER HAVE BEEN.

 

[martybegan]

A church will never be forced to perform a ceremony against their will.

Will you give me 10,000 to one odds on that?

Yes. No church will ever be forced (by law...public opinion is a different matter) to accept members or perform a marriage ceremony...just as they NEVER HAVE BEEN.

Sounds good. I put $1 on this bet, with a time limit of 10 years.

If this does happen, You owe me $10,000.

 

[Seawytch]

Oh, it's very relevant. It points out how eerily similar the "arguments" are...and how they are also doomed to fail just like anti-miscegenation. (in the courts)

The only similarity is it involves marriage. After that the comparison ends in your mind.

No, the similarities are right there in words. If you didn't know what each one was talking about, you could't tell them apart.

Bigots don't change, just their targets.

 

[Seawytch]

Will you give me 10,000 to one odds on that?

Yes. No church will ever be forced (by law...public opinion is a different matter) to accept members or perform a marriage ceremony...just as they NEVER HAVE BEEN.

Sounds good. I put $1 on this bet, with a time limit of 10 years.

If this does happen, You owe me $10,000.

And when it doesn't? I'm not a betting person so how does it work when in 10 years no church is forced by law to perform a ceremony against the tenants of their faith?

 

[martybegan]

Yes. No church will ever be forced (by law...public opinion is a different matter) to accept members or perform a marriage ceremony...just as they NEVER HAVE BEEN.

Sounds good. I put $1 on this bet, with a time limit of 10 years.

If this does happen, You owe me $10,000.

And when it doesn't? I'm not a betting person so how does it work when in 10 years no church is forced by law to perform a ceremony against the tenants of their faith?

If it doesn't I owe you a dollar. that is how 10,000 to one odds work. Well we have a case in Britain going on, you neglected to to quantify location.

LifeSiteNews Mobile | ?I am still not getting what I want?: Gay couple suing church for refusing ?wedding?

Less than two weeks after the coalition government’s gay “marriage” bill was signed into law, a homosexual man has launched a lawsuit against a Church of England parish in Maldon for refusing him and his civil partner the lavish church wedding of their dreams. Barrie Drewitt-Barlow told the Essex Chronicle that he has launched the suit because, despite the law, “I am still not getting what I want.”

 

[Newby]

Until they can refuse to bake a cake for an interracial couple, they shouldn't be able to deny me service.

Nobody is going to have the balls to get rid of public accommodation laws, they just want to carve out bullshit special rules for "the gheys".

There is no scriptural tenets against inter-racial marriage, there is scriptural tenets against homosexual acts.

Then how on earth did all those bigots of yore manage to use the bible to justify anti miscegenation laws?

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix" ~ Judge Leon Brazile 1959 anti-miscegenation ruling.

"...moral or social equality between the different races...does not in fact exist, and never can. The God of nature made it otherwise, and no human law can produce it, and no human tribunal can enforce it. There are gradations and classes throughout the universe. From the tallest archangel in Heaven, down to the meanest reptile on earth, moral and social inequalities exist, and must continue to exist throughout all eternity." ~ 1869 Georgia Supreme Court Ruling

And how about this gem from Bob Jones University?

God has separated people for His own purpose. He has erected barriers between the nations, not only land and sea barriers, but also ethnic, cultural, and language barriers. God has made people different one from another and intends those differences to remain.. Bob Jones University is opposed to intermarriage of the races because it breaks down the barriers God has established. It mixes that which God separated and intends to keep separate. Every effort in world history to bring the world together has demonstrated man’s self-reliance and his unwillingness to remain as God ordains. The attempts at one-worldism have been to devise a system without God and have fostered the promotion of a unity designed to give the world strength so that God is not needed and can be overthrown.

Although there is no verse in the Bible that dogmatically says that races should not intermarry, the whole plan of God as He has dealt with the races down through the ages indicates that interracial marriage is not best for man. We do believe we see principles, not specific verses, to give us direction for the avoidance of it.

The people who built the Tower of Babel were seeking a man-glorifying unity which God has not ordained (Gen. 11:4-6). Much of the agitation for intermarriage among the races today is for the same reason. It is promoted by one-worlders, and we oppose it for the same reason that we oppose religious ecumenism, globalism, one-world economy, one-world police force, unisex, etc. When Jesus Christ returns to the earth, He will establish world unity, but until then, a divided earth seems to be His plan.​

“Let them marry to whom they think best; only to the family of the tribe of their father shall they marry.” Num. 36:6.

“Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For they will turn away thy son from following Me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the Lord be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.” Deut. 7:3,4.

You do know that the two verses you quoted have nothing to do with inter-racial marriage, right?

 

[Seawytch]

There is no scriptural tenets against inter-racial marriage, there is scriptural tenets against homosexual acts.

Then how on earth did all those bigots of yore manage to use the bible to justify anti miscegenation laws?

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix" ~ Judge Leon Brazile 1959 anti-miscegenation ruling.

"...moral or social equality between the different races...does not in fact exist, and never can. The God of nature made it otherwise, and no human law can produce it, and no human tribunal can enforce it. There are gradations and classes throughout the universe. From the tallest archangel in Heaven, down to the meanest reptile on earth, moral and social inequalities exist, and must continue to exist throughout all eternity." ~ 1869 Georgia Supreme Court Ruling

And how about this gem from Bob Jones University?

God has separated people for His own purpose. He has erected barriers between the nations, not only land and sea barriers, but also ethnic, cultural, and language barriers. God has made people different one from another and intends those differences to remain.. Bob Jones University is opposed to intermarriage of the races because it breaks down the barriers God has established. It mixes that which God separated and intends to keep separate. Every effort in world history to bring the world together has demonstrated man’s self-reliance and his unwillingness to remain as God ordains. The attempts at one-worldism have been to devise a system without God and have fostered the promotion of a unity designed to give the world strength so that God is not needed and can be overthrown.

Although there is no verse in the Bible that dogmatically says that races should not intermarry, the whole plan of God as He has dealt with the races down through the ages indicates that interracial marriage is not best for man. We do believe we see principles, not specific verses, to give us direction for the avoidance of it.

The people who built the Tower of Babel were seeking a man-glorifying unity which God has not ordained (Gen. 11:4-6). Much of the agitation for intermarriage among the races today is for the same reason. It is promoted by one-worlders, and we oppose it for the same reason that we oppose religious ecumenism, globalism, one-world economy, one-world police force, unisex, etc. When Jesus Christ returns to the earth, He will establish world unity, but until then, a divided earth seems to be His plan.​

“Let them marry to whom they think best; only to the family of the tribe of their father shall they marry.” Num. 36:6.

“Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For they will turn away thy son from following Me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the Lord be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.” Deut. 7:3,4.

You do know that the two verses you quoted have nothing to do with inter-racial marriage, right?

And yet they were STILL used to justify anti miscegenation laws. None of the quotes in the bible have to do with loving, consensual same sex relationship...but that doesn't stop people from using them to justify bigotry.

http://americansforcommonsenseblog...-the-new-testament-doesnt-condemn-gay-people/

Sent from my KFSOWI using Tapatalk

 

[Seawytch]

Sounds good. I put $1 on this bet, with a time limit of 10 years.

If this does happen, You owe me $10,000.

And when it doesn't? I'm not a betting person so how does it work when in 10 years no church is forced by law to perform a ceremony against the tenants of their faith?

If it doesn't I owe you a dollar. that is how 10,000 to one odds work. Well we have a case in Britain going on, you neglected to to quantify location.

LifeSiteNews Mobile | ?I am still not getting what I want?: Gay couple suing church for refusing ?wedding?

Less than two weeks after the coalition government’s gay “marriage” bill was signed into law, a homosexual man has launched a lawsuit against a Church of England parish in Maldon for refusing him and his civil partner the lavish church wedding of their dreams. Barrie Drewitt-Barlow told the Essex Chronicle that he has launched the suit because, despite the law, “I am still not getting what I want.”

Suing doesn't equal wining. No church will ever have to perform a ceremony (in the US) against the tenants of their faith. I'll let you know where to send the buck...adjusted for inflation I presume.

Sent from my KFSOWI using Tapatalk