SSM bill passes the Senate 61-36

Reposting for @vibise since this post was directed at her.

You do know that before SSM became legalized, a gay person had the full right to enter into a legal marriage, right?

If marriage is going to have a definition to it, and boundaries around it (I.e., some relationships fit within the bounds of legal marriage and other relationships don’t), there are always going to be people who won’t be able to “marry the person they love”.

Do you support ALL people having the right to “marry the person they love” or are there situations where people should be denied that right?
 
Idiocy. No one hates gay people. I have gay people in my family. I don't care if someone is gay, but I don't have to agree with that lifestyle. That doesn't mean I hate gay people.
It makes them feel better about themselves if they think Christians hate gays.
 
You can capitalize "fact" all you like.
It's a belief.
And demonstrable reality. Computers do not assemble themselves. Apple requires the slaves in China to produce the hardware. Programs that cause the hardware to function are written by programmers. They do not self-generate. To suggest otherwise is fantasy.

And acknowledging a creator doesn't bring one into existence any more than drawing an Apple logo on a laptop makes it an Apple laptop.
I like that...genius illustration. It's true. You'd need proof that the program exists or you'd be acknowledging fiction. Once you know the program exists, you choose between denial or a pursuit of the Real.

You believe he is.
But founding documents are not - and should not - be based on unconfirmable beliefs.
Totally agree. Only confirmable facts...and not in rebellion to reason. Our founding documents are a study of excellent balance.

The US Constitution specifically omits mentions of Jesus and the god of the Bible, and its First Amendment forbids the creation of laws that favour Christianity, or any other religion, over irreligion.
No...It forbids the creation of laws promoting, yes, and the creation of ANY law forbidding the free practice. That is balance. And wisdom.

If somebody had used science to prove a god, they would have won a Nobel Prize, wouldn't they?
No...God's proof can only be found in the encounter. That is by design. I don't stand in the classroom and "teach" God. If possible I facilitate the encounter. He teaches Himself. That's the nature of relationship. On the other hand, the creation is being proven in quantum physics and AI and molecular biology over and over again.
 
No...God's proof can only be found in the encounter.
And yet, you started your reply with this:
And demonstrable reality. Computers do not assemble themselves. Apple requires the slaves in China to produce the hardware. Programs that cause the hardware to function are written by programmers. They do not self-generate. To suggest otherwise is fantasy.
An ostensible non-encounter proof that a creator exists.
So, which is it?
On the other hand, the creation is being proven in quantum physics and AI and molecular biology over and over again.
Read my question again:

If somebody had used science to prove a god, they would have won a Nobel Prize, wouldn't they?

"A" god; not "your" god.

If somebody had used science to prove that the universe is a creation - irrespective of who created it - why haven't they won a Nobel Prize?
 
And yet, you started your reply with this:

An ostensible non-encounter proof that a creator exists.
So, which is it?

Read my question again:

If somebody had used science to prove a god, they would have won a Nobel Prize, wouldn't they?

"A" god; not "your" god.

If somebody had used science to prove that the universe is a creation - irrespective of who created it - why haven't they won a Nobel Prize?
The people who decides who gets the Nobel Prize are not any different from the rest of fallen humans
 
Reposting for @vibise since this post was directed at her.
So you are saying that a gay person always had the right to enter into a heterosexual marriage? One that would be a lie? Would you like to be told your only marital option is to marry a man?

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).
 
The people who decides who gets the Nobel Prize are not any different from the rest of fallen humans
So, in your mind, somebody uses science to prove that the universe was created by a god... and the Nobel committee just says

"... nah"

?

You are completely off your rocker.

(Or, you know that your beliefs are not on scientifically sound footing, and are seeking to shift the blame.)
 
So you are saying that a gay person always had the right to enter into a heterosexual marriage? One that would be a lie? Would you like to be told your only marital option is to marry a man?

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).
So you do have limits that you would impose. So if enough people would vote to ban gay marriage ....democracy in action.
 
So, in your mind, somebody uses science to prove that the universe was created by a god... and the Nobel committee just says

"... nah"

?

You are completely off your rocker.

(Or, you know that your beliefs are not on scientifically sound footing, and are seeking to shift the blame.)
If they proved it, you would not believe it.

As you demonstrated.
 
So, in your mind, somebody uses science to prove that the universe was created by a god... and the Nobel committee just says

"... nah"

?

You are completely off your rocker.

(Or, you know that your beliefs are not on scientifically sound footing, and are seeking to shift the blame.)
All humans do not have perfect knowledge
 
So you are saying that a gay person always had the right to enter into a heterosexual marriage?

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

One that would be a lie? Would you like to be told your only marital option is to marry a man?

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:

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).

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.)
 
He rose from the dead. The tomb was empty...he was seen and is still seen today.

He got it right...but that's another forum.

It's an unnatural part of a corrupted nature.
There is nothing "unnatural" about anything that expresses itself in nature.
Romans 1 actually explains how it happens to the society that rejects God as God...and are left on their own. Pride takes over. Excess takes over. Thirst for entertainment takes over and the poor and the needy given to our charge are neglected. Our minds are given over to our own lusts unrestrained, and we are self-enslaved, and call that slavery freedom.


It's all there. You ought to read it. 21st century West in a single passage of scripture. Guess what ended and did not happen in fascist Germany, and does not happen in Muslim nations under Sharia or in China. Want to guess why? Societies do not last a single generation after they've been given over.
Meh... I would rather live in a liberal west than an oppressive east. Here I have the proper choices between secular living and spiritual living and the means to express either of them as long as their affects are contained.

Homosexuality in and of itself isn't a problem we need to worry about in this life. Both homosexual and heterosexual excess however is. That happens in every slice of reality from the religious to the secular.
 
There is nothing "unnatural" about anything that expresses itself in nature.

Meh... I would rather live in a liberal west than an oppressive east. Here I have the proper choices between secular living and spiritual living and the means to express either of them as long as their affects are contained.

Homosexuality in and of itself isn't a problem we need to worry about in this life. Both homosexual and heterosexual excess however is. That happens in every slice of reality from the religious to the secular.
The worship of self in action.
 
And yet, you started your reply with this:

An ostensible non-encounter proof that a creator exists.
So, which is it?
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.]

Read my question again:

If somebody had used science to prove a god, they would have won a Nobel Prize, wouldn't they?

"A" god; not "your" god.

If somebody had used science to prove that the universe is a creation - irrespective of who created it - why haven't they won a Nobel Prize?
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.
 
Intelligent design is so overwhelmingly apparent,
Then why no Nobel Prize?
Who's ready to admit the obvious? You're not.
Ah - "it's obvious". Mainstay of logic since the days of Aristotle.
?‍♂️

Remember when Einstein said that the photoelectric effect was "obvious", and that was enough for the Nobel committee?
Neither do I.
But the impossibility of any for of Darwinism
You know what - this would, if proven, be enough for a Nobel in its own right.
So, why hasn't a Nobel been awarded for a falsification of evolution by natural selection?

Oh - I forgot.
"It's obvious."

Instead of blaming your beliefs for not convincing us, you blame us for not being convinced.
How juveile.
 
There is nothing "unnatural" about anything that expresses itself in nature.
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.

Meh... I would rather live in a liberal west than an oppressive east. Here I have the proper choices between secular living and spiritual living and the means to express either of them as long as their affects are contained.
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...

Homosexuality in and of itself isn't a problem we need to worry about in this life. Both homosexual and heterosexual excess however is. That happens in every slice of reality from the religious to the secular.
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.
 
You seem unaware that there are a lot of intimate relationships that will never produce offspring, but that does not mean they are bereft of love or hope, and SSM certainly gives them the opportunity to have a future together.
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.
 
Back
Top