SSM bill passes the Senate 61-36

Furion

Well-known member
The problem for you is that SSM is not accepted by a majority of Americans.
The vote in the Senate reflects that shift in that 12 Republicans voted with the Dems to approve SSM.
Your gay marriage is not accepted by the majority of Americans, this is true.
 

vibise

Well-known member
I'm saying that a gay person always had the right to enter into a legal marriage. Which, of course, is 100% true.



No, I would not like to be told that. But that doesn't change the fact that a gay person had the same right to enter into a legal marriage. We can't always have the thing we want, and sometimes the thing we want is not allowable.

To wit:



Ok so this is what you wrote that I responded to with my post:

"I have never understood this concept of "hate the sin but not the sinner" if it means that the "sinner" is denied rights and benefits the rest of us have. I don't see that as love or support."

Your words exactly.

So you would deny these "sinners" the same rights and benefits the rest of us have. Don't you think that's a grave imposition of your personal morality on these people? Why are YOU justified in imposing YOUR morality on THEM, while at the same time complaining that OTHERS might be imposing THEIR morality on YOU?

(And apparently, based on this conversation, you can't use children in any way as a reason for opposing, say, incestuous marriage, since apparently marriage isn't about children at all.)
You keep referring to "legal marriage" which I gather you mean "heterosexuals getting married". But SSM is legal.

And yes it is relevant that you would not like to be told that you can only legally marry another man, because that is essentially what you are telling gay people. And somehow you think this is clever - denying people the choices and happiness that heterosexuals can have.
 

vibise

Well-known member
Great question...In terms of the existence of a creator, the latter. Intelligent design is so overwhelmingly apparent, Darwin's antiquated fantasies are unscientific nonsense and obsolete. In terms of a personal God, personally and deliberately and deeply invested in your welfare, the former.

You might think I'm trying to be glib, but there really is a process to knowing the truth, as with any investigation. Paul wrote of this clearly in Romans 1, the forbidden passage in Canada, where if I read it on the radio, the show would be shut down:
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness. 19For what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse. [Think photons communicating in real time across the universe, and the hackable electronic processes of the brain.]

21For although they knew God, they neither glorified Him as God nor gave thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking and darkened in their foolish hearts. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools, 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images of mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. [We go for whatever floats the boat...and we think we're more sophisticated because we worship our gadgets and not statues.]

24Therefore God gave them over in the desires of their hearts to impurity for the dishonoring of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is forever worthy of praise!f Amen. [Think, worship as ascribing highest value to. What's first in your life?]

26For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27Likewise, the men abandoned natural relations with women and burned with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28Furthermore, since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, He gave them up to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed, and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant, and boastful. They invent new forms of evil; they disobey their parents. 31They are senseless, faithless, heartless, merciless. [If you take verses 26 to the end as equally dangerous, you will see that envy, murder, strife and malice are equal threats with everything else. Paul makes that clear in the next chapter. This is not "homophobia". It's a realistic analysis of the symptoms brought on by a disease called arrogance.]


This is a really good question. Who's ready to admit the obvious? You're not. Paul says up above that the truth is being deliberately suppressed by the wickedness of the censors. But the impossibility of any proof for of Darwinism stands as an indictment to the pseudo-science that thinks anything goes, as long as they control the dialog.
Your start off claiming that Darwinian evolution is unscientific, but then shift to Bible passages to support your claims.

Well, no one accepts the Bible as science, and despite your claims, evolution is very much accepted science and drives much of the biomedical research being done today.
 

vibise

Well-known member
You're arguing in favor of "natural corruption," and missing the point that corruption exists. Cancer is a corruption of original cell design. A virus reprograms the original cellular design. You can call them "natural", but understand, it's corruption, and it shall be addressed when creation itself is redeemed.

You won't have that choice for long. You are being sold out, and the east is buying, with ten percent for the big guy...

Worry is not the goal. It's good to be cognizant of symptoms if you are going to address the disease...Your second statement is well put, and could actually be a very satisfactory goal in the meantime. Excess is killing us, and we need allies that see it, love their neighbors and are willing to defend those who are in harm's way of the excesses.
Your claim that viruses are engaged in "corruption" is a value judgement that is irrelevant in science.
Predation is a very natural phenomenon that occurs at the organismal level as well as subcellular.
 

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
Those Participating In Same Sex Marriage, And Vibise Who Supports Baby Killing (Abortion) have something in common, It's Gonna Be A Warm Future Together For Those That Don't Turn And Repent
Who are you telling this to?

The people that don't believe it, or the people that already believe it?
 

vibise

Well-known member
Those Participating In Same Sex Marriage, And Vibise Who Supports Baby Killing (Abortion) have something in common, It's Gonna Be A Warm Future Together For Those That Don't Turn And Repent

2 Peter 2:9KJV
6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;

Romans 1:26-32KJV
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:
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.
If all you have is Bible verses, then you don't really have an argument that would address how to run a secular nation.
 

vibise

Well-known member
I know homophobic atheists.

Most American Catholic and Mainline Protestants support same sex marriage

It’s really mostly Evangelicals that oppose it. Basically the same brake down as the pro-torture demographics. Evangelicals are just nasty and morally bankrupt, kind of like Wahhabi Muslims.
They also oppose abortion and feminism and teaching about our racist history.
 

Crazy Ivan

Well-known member
You keep referring to "legal marriage" which I gather you mean "heterosexuals getting married". But SSM is legal.

Right, now SSM is legal. We were discussing the days before SSM was legal. And back then, a gay man or lesbian woman (or a bisexual person) was perfectly free to enter into a legal marriage. That's just a fact.

And yes it is relevant that you would not like to be told that you can only legally marry another man, because that is essentially what you are telling gay people. And somehow you think this is clever - denying people the choices and happiness that heterosexuals can have.

Seems like from your response to me earlier, which said, "And yes, there should be limits to marriage, limits that would prevent marriages with underage girls or boys, polygamy, and closely related people (fathers and daughters, brothers and sisters)", that YOU ALSO would deny certain people the choices and happiness that you and I enjoy.

You're trying to paint me as some sort of moral monster here, when you're doing the exact same thing. You just think YOUR reasons are good ones and that MY reasons are bad ones, when I happen to think that MY reasons are also pretty darned good and that YOU are being a hypocrite.
 

tbeachhead

Well-known member
I agree to a degree. There are certain positions that I would never consider hiring a Christian for.
There are certain positions I would fear applying for. A teacher today in a public school system is often required to compromise even the most basic biology, and what used to be common psychology to enable dysfunction and act as if dysfunction is normal behavior.

I could not do that for the sake of the child, and even before I retired I was forced to find workarounds so a dysfunctional parent, and the dysfunctional administrator were placated. I never had problems with the actual, dysfunctional child. She/"he" knew we agreed about almost everything, and we had a show to do for others. We were able to work together for four years. Although, on male hormones, terrible things were happening to her physically.

Glad this in anonymous forum. Discriminating against Christians is illegal. Discriminating against gays, not so much.
You are woefully uninformed. Discriminating against Christians is de rigueur in public schools. As a former evangelical missionary working overseas on four continents and a dozen countries, I came home in 1987 and was hired to teach in a public school where my year in Seminary counted toward my education to fix my salary. As the alphabet crowd worked its way into administrative positions in my district, we were increasingly told in "professional development" workshops what we should teach, what could and could not be said, and which bathrooms were whose. In 2017, my 14th year directing twenty full length plays and musicals, when a few children between the ages of 14 and 18 were discussing their intimate sex lives in the green room (actors' prep room), while rehearsing for a show. I told them their conversations were toxic, and not conducive to strengthening the ensemble. Because the children happened to be gay, a caring adult reported me, and I was dragged out of my classroom where my sophomore daughter was seated in the front row, and taken to the Superintendent's office to be informed that I was under investigation for "using discriminatory words," According to district lawyers, I was not to be told what behavior, what context, what words or to whom I owed an apology until my own deposition, and if I spoke of the investigation to anyone, I'd be suspended from my position. After a three month $5000 investigation where my entire cast was dragged before an inquisitorial panel to find dirt on me and my directing, it was discovered that I did everything according to school board policy, and that I cast plays according to the illusion the play called for, and not according to the sex lives of young teenagers, as had been alleged. I was vindicated and exonerated...and assured that my administration was not trying to make an example of me, and get my face on the front pages of the local newspapers.

Christians must not question woke policies or be dismissed. Christians must not debate in classes. Christian students are intimated into silence. The woke have the upper hand in the debate. That's why these conversations are so much entertainment for me. To actually see that you believe this stuff is astonishing.
 

vibise

Well-known member
Right, now SSM is legal. We were discussing the days before SSM was legal. And back then, a gay man or lesbian woman (or a bisexual person) was perfectly free to enter into a legal marriage. That's just a fact.



Seems like from your response to me earlier, which said, "And yes, there should be limits to marriage, limits that would prevent marriages with underage girls or boys, polygamy, and closely related people (fathers and daughters, brothers and sisters)", that YOU ALSO would deny certain people the choices and happiness that you and I enjoy.

You're trying to paint me as some sort of moral monster here, when you're doing the exact same thing. You just think YOUR reasons are good ones and that MY reasons are bad ones, when I happen to think that MY reasons are also pretty darned good and that YOU are being a hypocrite.
And it is clearly a fact that you do not understand that a gay person is no more likely or willing to engage in a heterosexual marriage than you would be to marry a man. And you agreed with the later point, so why not with the former point. This RW talking point is insulting to gays, failing to recognize their existence and their needs.

My restrictions on marriage prevent exploitation of vulnerable people. This does not apply to SSM between consenting adults.

My reasons are based on protecting vulnerable children and people, and your objections are based on your religious objections which hurt people if enacted.
 

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
You are woefully uninformed. Discriminating against Christians is de rigueur in public schools. As a former evangelical missionary working overseas on four continents and a dozen countries, I came home in 1987 and was hired to teach in a public school where my year in Seminary counted toward my education to fix my salary. As the alphabet crowd worked its way into administrative positions in my district, we were increasingly told in "professional development" workshops what we should teach, what could and could not be said, and which bathrooms were whose. In 2017, my 14th year directing twenty full length plays and musicals, when a few children between the ages of 14 and 18 were discussing their intimate sex lives in the green room (actors' prep room), while rehearsing for a show. I told them their conversations were toxic, and not conducive to strengthening the ensemble. Because the children happened to be gay, a caring adult reported me, and I was dragged out of my classroom where my sophomore daughter was seated in the front row, and taken to the Superintendent's office to be informed that I was under investigation for "using discriminatory words," According to district lawyers, I was not to be told what behavior, what context, what words or to whom I owed an apology until my own deposition, and if I spoke of the investigation to anyone, I'd be suspended from my position. After a three month $5000 investigation where my entire cast was dragged before an inquisitorial panel to find dirt on me and my directing, it was discovered that I did everything according to school board policy, and that I cast plays according to the illusion the play called for, and not according to the sex lives of young teenagers, as had been alleged. I was vindicated and exonerated...and assured that my administration was not trying to make an example of me, and get my face on the front pages of the local newspapers.
Had you been a non-Christian and said exactly what you said, you would have been subject to the same treatment - right or wrong.

You were not punished for being a Christian.
You were punished, and happnened to be a Christian.

But then, the Bible has told you that persecution is a badge of honour, so it's no wonder you look for it everywhere.
 

vibise

Well-known member
There are certain positions I would fear applying for. A teacher today in a public school system is often required to compromise even the most basic biology, and what used to be common psychology to enable dysfunction and act as if dysfunction is normal behavior.

I could not do that for the sake of the child, and even before I retired I was forced to find workarounds so a dysfunctional parent, and the dysfunctional administrator were placated. I never had problems with the actual, dysfunctional child. She/"he" knew we agreed about almost everything, and we had a show to do for others. We were able to work together for four years. Although, on male hormones, terrible things were happening to her physically.


You are woefully uninformed. Discriminating against Christians is de rigueur in public schools. As a former evangelical missionary working overseas on four continents and a dozen countries, I came home in 1987 and was hired to teach in a public school where my year in Seminary counted toward my education to fix my salary. As the alphabet crowd worked its way into administrative positions in my district, we were increasingly told in "professional development" workshops what we should teach, what could and could not be said, and which bathrooms were whose. In 2017, my 14th year directing twenty full length plays and musicals, when a few children between the ages of 14 and 18 were discussing their intimate sex lives in the green room (actors' prep room), while rehearsing for a show. I told them their conversations were toxic, and not conducive to strengthening the ensemble. Because the children happened to be gay, a caring adult reported me, and I was dragged out of my classroom where my sophomore daughter was seated in the front row, and taken to the Superintendent's office to be informed that I was under investigation for "using discriminatory words," According to district lawyers, I was not to be told what behavior, what context, what words or to whom I owed an apology until my own deposition, and if I spoke of the investigation to anyone, I'd be suspended from my position. After a three month $5000 investigation where my entire cast was dragged before an inquisitorial panel to find dirt on me and my directing, it was discovered that I did everything according to school board policy, and that I cast plays according to the illusion the play called for, and not according to the sex lives of young teenagers, as had been alleged. I was vindicated and exonerated...and assured that my administration was not trying to make an example of me, and get my face on the front pages of the local newspapers.

Christians must not question woke policies or be dismissed. Christians must not debate in classes. Christian students are intimated into silence. The woke have the upper hand in the debate. That's why these conversations are so much entertainment for me. To actually see that you believe this stuff is astonishing.
So you specifically told gay students that their discussions about their sex lives was toxic. Did none of the heterosexual students discuss the details of their sex lives without consequence?
 

vibise

Well-known member
I think anybody should have the right to deny (non-medical) service to anybody, for any reason.

And that the person denied service has every right to shout from the rooftops who denied them, and why.
I think if any business wants to refuse service to a group of people, they should post this clearly on their websites, and the front doors of their shops/offices.
 

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
And it is clearly a fact that you do not understand that a gay person is no more likely or willing to engage in a heterosexual marriage than you would be to marry a man.
If I opened a shop that sold shoes, but only in my size, what kind of idiot would I be if I responded to criticism from those of other sizes to say

"You have as much right to buy size nines as those that are size nine"

?
 

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
I think if any business wants to refuse service to a group of people, they should post this clearly on their websites, and the front doors of their shops/offices.
Yep - if you intend to refuse service to gays, put that on your window in nice, big letters.

Unless you're ashamed, of course...
 

Crazy Ivan

Well-known member
And it is clearly a fact that you do not understand that a gay person is no more likely or willing to engage in a heterosexual marriage than you would be to marry a man.

Well of course I understand that. Duh. But a gay person COULD enter into a legal marriage, which still confers lots of benefits.

And you agreed with the later point, so why not with the former point. This RW talking point is insulting to gays, failing to recognize their existence and their needs.

My restrictions on marriage prevent exploitation of vulnerable people. This does not apply to SSM between consenting adults.

My reasons are based on protecting vulnerable children and people,

Children are not supposed to be part of this conversation. Sorry. Can't use that.

And all this means is that you think YOUR reasoning is justified. Well...I think that MY reasoning is justified. And you're being a hypocrite, criticizing me for denying certain people the right to marry whomever they love, while you're doing the EXACT SAME THING.

Hypocrisy, thy name is vibise.

and your objections are based on your religious objections which hurt people if enacted.

Why do you keep saying that my objections are religious in nature, when we've been over this a bunch of times and my reasoning is secular in nature? Why do you insist on doing this when you know it's not true?
 

Furion

Well-known member
If that were the case, no Republicans would have voted to support SSM.
That's a classic non sequitur.

If what you are claiming is true then all votes would follow polls.

Yes, politicians will vote for what the majority of the people oppose. For an example look at their voting on giving themselves raises.
 

tbeachhead

Well-known member
So you specifically told gay students that their discussions about their sex lives was toxic.
No my friend, but thanks for clarifying what the "caring" adults who reported me were thinking. I cast plays. The cast is acting according to a script. I'm not required to interview children about their private sex lives before I cast the show, and frankly, that would be twisted and have no bearing on the cast. Whatever the player thinks he is back stage...he isn't until the script tells him what he is on stage. How well a player creates the illusion on stage is the measure of his success as an actor. If I say, "kiss the girl," and the actor says, "I don't kiss girls," I find the actor who will. That's drama and it's the healthiest measure of real tolerance I know. Most of my drama club were gay toward the last years. I did not have the luxury of discriminating by anything other than outward appearance.

Did none of the heterosexual students discuss the details of their sex lives without consequence?
Did you miss something. A fourteen year old talking sex is not conducive to a strong ensemble on stage. My plays were the accomplishment of strong ensembles, and sometimes I was required to train kids in team building. Not sure why you're having difficulty grasping this. We had a task to perform together.
 
Top