Gay Marriage To Be Overturned, Suit Filed, SCOTUS Will Overturn Obergefell. #MRGA
(youtu.be)
𝕊ℙ𝕀ℝ𝕀𝕋𝕌𝔸𝕃 𝕎𝔸ℝ𝔽𝔸ℝ𝔼
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (108)
sorted by:
“I mean that marriage is a creational ordinance from God, given before there even was a civil magistrate, and entrusted to the stewardship of God’s people. In other words, the “church” didn’t invent it, but the Author of Scripture did, and His people have always been the primary guardians of it.”
So the Bible should be used to define it based on…what exactly? It’s a religious claim you’re making, but it’s a real-word practice engaged in by many other cultures that predate the Bible. So how exactly do you expect such an argument to hold weight wity the Supreme Court if in fact they agree to hear this case? So the Bible says stuff about the God it touts ordaining marriage, how would such an argument hold up in a court of law? Again, I’m not saying it shouldn’t, and I genuinely appreciated and enjoyed your answer, I’m not sure I disagree with it, but I’m not sure I feel comfortable with it yet either. How do you think the most conservative justices on SCOTUS will view that argument and why?
Well, the short answer is that this “religious claim” is only religious in the same way “gravity is real” is religious. Yes, the Bible reveals it, but it also happens to be woven into creation itself. Marriage is not a denominational quirk like whether you sprinkle or dunk at baptism. It’s a creational ordinance rooted in male-and-female biology, the begetting of children, and covenant fidelity. The Bible doesn’t so much “introduce” marriage as it does identify, define, and fence in what God already built into the world before anyone was around to scribble hieroglyphs about it.
As for the “other cultures predating the Bible” bit, that’s like saying “people believed in air before scientists wrote it down, therefore the scientists can’t define it.” The existence of marriage across cultures is actually proof of its creational universality, not evidence that it’s up for reinvention. When pagan cultures got marriage right, it was because they were borrowing God’s blueprint, even if they refused to give Him credit. When they got it wrong, the results were predictable—broken homes, social collapse, and men marrying goats.
Now, on the matter of SCOTUS—America’s own legal tradition is already soaked in biblical categories whether people admit it or not. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights didn’t drop out of the sky in Philadelphia in 1787; they were distilled from the general equity of God’s law. And if that sounds like preacher-talk, just go read the Supreme Court’s own ruling in Holy Trinity v. United States (1892), where they explicitly stated that “this is a Christian nation.” That wasn’t some theocratic slip of the tongue—they were simply recognizing the obvious historical DNA of our law.
Even the most conservative justices know they are operating in a framework that assumes certain pre-political realities—rights given by a Creator, not the state. Marriage is one of those. If a case like this went before the Court, the strongest constitutional argument is also the strongest biblical one: the state is a witness and protector of what God ordained, not a sculptor free to chisel out whatever statue it likes.
Or, to put it bluntly, if the government claims the authority to redefine marriage, it is claiming to be God. And the last time a civil magistrate tried that, we called him Pharaoh, and he ended up chasing Israelites into the Red Sea.
This is a Q forum. Q not only says "God Wins" but like our founding fathers, also quotes bible verses. The Christian worldview is the objective standard that this movement, like our nation, is built upon. You can either stand on the objective foundation of Truth and morality that comes from that worldview or you can reject it.... But if you do, there is no objective truth or morality. Everything just becomes preference. That has utterly failed throughout history. But if you want to be a socialist, go right ahead.
It seems that sex itself is more akin to the comparison you made to gravity than marriage itself. If we’re getting biblical with it, then that leaves the door wide open to polygamy, as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob all practiced it. So is it one man and one woman, just men women regardless of the number of women? If the state’s job is to support that which makes a nation strong and to keep it from collapsing in on itself, as you seemed to imply there, then how can the state NOT be involved in setting parameters for marriage? And if the Bible is to be out guide on how marriage should be structured according to the state then what would you argue that structure to be if the fathers of what you called God’s chosen people, who the Bible suggests walked in God’s ways, then why isn’t polygamy being considered as a legitimate marital structure? And if it’s not, then what happens to the claim that the Bible is the authority we are following, or ought to follow, in light of that?
You’re right that sex is a creational reality, but marriage is the covenantal framework God built for it—sex without marriage is like electricity without insulation. It still works, but you’re going to burn the house down. Gravity may be unavoidable, but so is the fact that God designed male-and-female covenant as the context for fruitful, ordered, multi-generational stability. That’s why marriage is not just a religious rite, but the operating system for human civilization.
On the polygamy point: yes, Abraham, Jacob, and others practiced it—and if you read the accounts closely, every time polygamy shows up, family drama comes right along with it like a drunk uncle at Thanksgiving. Scripture records polygamy the way a police blotter records robberies—it’s there in the record, but that’s not the same thing as God’s endorsement. From Genesis 2 onward, God’s design was crystal clear: “a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife” (singular). Jesus Himself reinforced this in Matthew 19, and He was not ignorant of Abraham’s biography.
As for the state’s involvement: yes, the magistrate bears the sword to protect what makes a nation strong. But here’s the distinction—God defines marriage, the state recognizes and safeguards it. The state doesn’t get to decide what marriage is any more than it gets to redefine what a “mile” is. If you hand Caesar the authority to invent the definition, you’ve just invited him to turn your covenant into a social experiment.
So, to answer your “why not polygamy?”—because polygamy violates the creational pattern, fractures the unity between husband and wife, and historically destabilizes societies. God’s Word is not inconsistent; it records man’s sin without rewriting God’s design. In the same way the Law records murder without suggesting we adopt it as a judicial policy, it records polygamy without suggesting we make it the marital standard.
If we actually followed the biblical model—one man, one woman, covenant before God—we’d have a social order that strengthens families instead of fraying them. And if that makes the state’s job easier, all the better. But letting the state define marriage is like letting the fox write the rules for the henhouse. You might get a rulebook, but you’re not going to like the ending.
But you're obviously not a Christian. Are you an atheist that believes in evolution? Because if so, by what standard do you have a problem with any of this? You're just matter floating through space acted upon by time and chance signifying nothing. Your ancestors were fish. Nothing matters. Everything is subjective. Who cares? Why are you being so inconsistent with your worldview right now?
That being said I don't have Bible studies with atheists. If you want to tell me that you're a Christian and what church you go to and who your pastor is we can do a little conference call and discuss your theological shortcomings with your Church leadership and they can help get you back on the right path. If not, you just need to repent and believe the gospel.
You’re making good arguments but that last bit was uncalled for. You don’t do Bible study with atheist? Isn’t that literally what Jesus told us to do? Spread the gospel to unbelievers? It came off very judgmental and not very Christ like which Im sure wasn’t your intent.
Just wanted to say I enjoyed the fleshing out of points of view from both of you.
ETA after reading further down thread I can see why it’s annoying when the other person is not forthcoming with where they stand. Anyways enjoyed your point of View. Thanks for sharing
I'm anything but an atheist. And I really appreciate your attempts to answer these questions. I don't think you're being as consistent as you'd like to believe, but I certainly appreciate the way you write.
You bring up Jesus. We have no proof in the collection of books that we currently call the Bible that Jesus was married. What should we think of that? I think that if he was a real person, he likely WAS married, why wouldn't he have gotten married? And other scripture not accepted as such by the Catholic Church, the collection you put so much stock in today, suggest Jesus was married.
But I'm sitting here listening to you say that the Bible can be an authoritative judge of what is and isn't right, and yet there are many churches that consider themselves Christian that exist specifically because they interpret the same set of words differently.
You point to a verse that says a man should love his wife, and you point out that it's singular in nature. Cool. Does that actually mean that having a second is considered a sin before God? If it is, then how come the widely considered fathers of God's covenant people practiced it without God, with whom they seemed to converse quite regularly speaking against it?
That seems to be a case of you deriving a commandment of sorts not from the word of God, but from...if I understood you correctly, the squabbles those men experienced in their myriad marriages. So now the difficulties a man experiences within the scripture is how we determine God's will or not?
What does that say about Job? He seemed to do everything right, only appeared to have one wife, and yet his life was fraught with disaster. So is it the direct commands given by God and recorded in Scripture that we are to follow, or are we to read between the lines by looking at the struggles the men experienced by how they lived their lives?
As I would think you would see, that's hardly an objective standard. The problem with using the Bible to determine how the state should deal with us, and what form of what institutions it should protect, is precisely that. It's not objective. None of it is.
Now personally, I agree with you on polygamy. I think history itself has proven that it's not sustainable. But it's very easy to see how one could read the Old Testament and if you're looking at the behavior of so-called prophets as a standard, rather than the outcomes they experienced as a result of their behavior, you might think polygamy is God's way, but then there's the problem of Job.
I just think there are too many ways that your argument that the Bible is an objective standard falls apart, and what we're really looking at is the standard of whoever happens to be interpreting it, attempting to give his argument more weight.
I'll be honest, I don't know how I feel about this subject. I thought we got along just fine without gay marriage, and since it came about, we certainly appear to have fallen down that slippery slope so many warned about, and I'm not sure I would mind if it was done away with.
Likewise I don't feel comfortable with polygamy, but to what degree to we take these beliefs? They used to stone adultresses in the Bible, but men could have as many wives as they wanted--it certainly gives them to right to take on a second wife if their brother passes away and leaves a widow. I know many on this board believe adultery should be a criminal offense. What does the bible say about that perspective?
But the thing is this, even in your own argument you couldn't seem to make it with just the Bible alone. You had to cite history. You had to cite what happens when societies of the past have allowed polygamy to make your point.
But why do that if the bible is an objective standard? And that's why, while I'm really not sure I disagree with what you hope happens in all of this (getting rid of gay marriage--I'm not sure I care either way), the argument you're using, while very well written, just doesn't sit right with me.
It seems you're trying to bully others into accepting your interpretation of the Bible, almost pretending as if no other interpretation exists, and this you call objective. It just doesn't sit right with me.
In terms of the wrongness of gay "marriage" it goes right back to Genesis: First with Genesis 1:27, "So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." and then Genesis 2:20-24, "But for Adam no suitable helper was found. 21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
23 The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.”
24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh."