Will same sex marriage be codified in Congress?

[Chef Jim]

6 minutes ago, sherpa said:

 

Good that your "goofin,"  'cause it saves me time from posting numerous extrabiblical references.

Now the kicker.  Proof he was the son of God and not some weirdo.  Imagine someone going around saying that today.  As a matter of fact you could probably find a few on some streets in every major city. 

8 minutes ago, BillStime said:

Do you believe in gay marriage?

Believe in it?   🤦🏻‍♂️

[sherpa]

4 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

Now the kicker.  Proof he was the son of God and not some weirdo.  Imagine someone going around saying that today.  As a matter of fact you could probably find a few on some streets in every major city. 

  🤦🏻‍♂️

 

Have you ever looked into this?

Have you seen what happened after the crucifixion?

 

If those events happened today, as you suggest, I would pay attention.

 

I get that you don't acknowledge this, and I'm fine without arguing with people who don't.

 

 

19 minutes ago, BillStime said:

Do you believe in gay marriage?

 

That question doesn't make sense.

Nothing unusual there.

 

I have no view on gay marriage.

I have a view that faith based organizations should have the right to not perform that ceremony.

[BillStime]

5 minutes ago, sherpa said:

 

Have you ever looked into this?

Have you seen what happened after the crucifixion?

 

If those events happened today, as you suggest, I would pay attention.

 

I get that you don't acknowledge this, and I'm fine without arguing with people who don't.

 

 

 

That question doesn't make sense.

Nothing unusual there.

 

I have no view on gay marriage.

I have a view that faith based organizations should have the right to not perform that ceremony.

No one is forcing faith based organizations to perform anything. 
 

Stop listening to Bonnie 

[sherpa]

2 minutes ago, BillStime said:

No one is forcing faith based organizations to perform anything. 

 

As it should be.

 

[Chef Jim]

Just now, sherpa said:

 

Have you ever looked into this?

Have you seen what happened after the crucifixion?

 

If those events happened today, as you suggest, I would pay attention.

 

I get that you don't acknowledge this, and I'm fine without arguing with people who don't.

 

 

Have I seen what happened after the crucifixion?  No I have not.  And nether have you. Do you believe ever story in every book you read?  Every movie you’ve seen?  It’s a great story with wonderful message.  I have nothing against the story. I believe that Jesus was an actual man but the stories about him and the miracles were just that…stories. 
 

And regarding if those events happened today?  They won’t and I’m pretty sure they never happened then either. 

[BillStime]

17 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

 

And right there Jim, is why there is no use discussing religion with you.

 

I wish you would be as interested in the political consequences of this government attack as you are at trying to question your fellow posters feelings.

 

Oh well.

 

 

.

👆

 

And there you have it:

 

 

[sherpa]

21 hours ago, Chef Jim said:

Have I seen what happened after the crucifixion?  No I have not.  And nether have you. Do you believe ever story in every book you read?  Every movie you’ve seen?  It’s a great story with wonderful message.  I have nothing against the story. I believe that Jesus was an actual man but the stories about him and the miracles were just that…stories. 
 

And regarding if those events happened today?  They won’t and I’m pretty sure they never happened then either. 

 

The issue here is what it always is.

The events that I reference are recorded in the Bible, specifically, in the Book of Acts.

 

The Book of Acts is accredited to Luke, the physician.

It goes into great detail regarding the events after the crucifixion that I referred to.

 

If someone discredits the veracity of the Bible, which is assuredly your posture, it is a fool's errand to have the discussion.

 

I have no interest in trying to convince anyone of anything, but I have spent a good deal of time and effort in this, and I have my beliefs based on that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Chef Jim]

1 hour ago, sherpa said:

 

The issue here is what it always is.

The events that I reference are recorded in the Bible, specifically, in the Book of Acts.

 

The Book of Acts is accredited to Luke, the physician.

It goes into great detail regarding the events after the crucifixion that I referred to.

 

If someone discredits the veracity of the Bible, which is assuredly your posture, it is a fool's errand to have the discussion.

 

I have no interest in trying to convince anyone of anything, but I have spent a good deal of time and effort in this, and I have my beliefs based on that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let's put this all into perspective shall we.  As a believer I assume you believe that God created the heavens and the earth.  I would assume this means he created the universe.  The universe, to our knowledge, is comprised billions of stars per galaxy and billions of galaxies.  These galaxies have been around for billions and billions of years.  However you believers feel that a handful of guys a couple thousand years ago on the spec of dust called earth defined marriage as between a man and a woman.  I assume this came from God.  Why did he wait billions of years to put man on earth and then waited 300,000 to make some rules for man to follow?  A bit far fetched and self-serving to think that this is the case.  I will leave you with this.  To me god didn't create man in his image.  Man created him in his image. 

 

Now having said that I have nothing against believers.  As a matter of fact I have a lot of respect for them.  The Bible is filled with stories of love and respect.  However when you refuse to respect the wishes of a gay couple that would absolutely love to have a faith based wedding in a church they may attend I just don't understand.  Maybe that is just a result of my non-belief.  

[Gene Frenkle]

2 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

Let's put this all into perspective shall we.  As a believer I assume you believe that God created the heavens and the earth.  I would assume this means he created the universe.  The universe, to our knowledge, is comprised billions of stars per galaxy and billions of galaxies.  These galaxies have been around for billions and billions of years.  However you believers feel that a handful of guys a couple thousand years ago on the spec of dust called earth defined marriage as between a man and a woman.  I assume this came from God.  Why did he wait billions of years to put man on earth and then waited 300,000 to make some rules for man to follow?  A bit far fetched and self-serving to think that this is the case.  I will leave you with this.  To me god didn't create man in his image.  Man created him in his image. 

 

Now having said that I have nothing against believers.  As a matter of fact I have a lot of respect for them.  The Bible is filled with stories of love and respect.  However when you refuse to respect the wishes of a gay couple that would absolutely love to have a faith based wedding in a church they may attend I just don't understand.  Maybe that is just a result of my non-belief.  

 

Maybe he thinks that life, the Universe and everything are only 6,000-ish years old, as a biblical scholar. It helps to know what you're dealing with.

[ChiGoose]

2 minutes ago, Gene Frenkle said:

 

Maybe he thinks that life, the Universe and everything are only 6,000-ish years old, as a biblical scholar. It helps to know what you're dealing with.

 

Actually, the answer to life, the universe, and everything is 42.

[Chef Jim]

12 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

Actually, the answer to life, the universe, and everything is 42.

Yes, but what’s the question?  🤷🏻‍♂️

[ChiGoose]

3 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

Yes, but what’s the question?  🤷🏻‍♂️

 

I'm going to need a more powerful computer to answer that...

[Chef Jim]

5 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

I'm going to need a more powerful computer to answer that...

Hmmmm. I’ll have to give this some thought. Some deep thought. 🤔

[sherpa]

16 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

Let's put this all into perspective shall we.  As a believer I assume you believe that God created the heavens and the earth.  I would assume this means he created the universe.  The universe, to our knowledge, is comprised billions of stars per galaxy and billions of galaxies.  These galaxies have been around for billions and billions of years.  However you believers feel that a handful of guys a couple thousand years ago on the spec of dust called earth defined marriage as between a man and a woman.  I assume this came from God.  Why did he wait billions of years to put man on earth and then waited 300,000 to make some rules for man to follow?  A bit far fetched and self-serving to think that this is the case.  I will leave you with this.  To me god didn't create man in his image.  Man created him in his image. 

 

Now having said that I have nothing against believers.  As a matter of fact I have a lot of respect for them.  The Bible is filled with stories of love and respect.  However when you refuse to respect the wishes of a gay couple that would absolutely love to have a faith based wedding in a church they may attend I just don't understand.  Maybe that is just a result of my non-belief.  

 

The wishes of a gay couple do not compel a requirement that their union be sanctioned by a formal acknowledgement of it.

 

If some want to, so be it. They can find that venue without problem.

 

Regarding your lack of belief, which i have no problem with, I would refer you to the exact claim, made by Jesus, that people are not equipped to handle it.

 

Matthew 16:

 

13   When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”

14   They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”

15   “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”

16    Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

17   Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.

[Precision]

I suppose it's better they codify it in congress than consummate it in congress!

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

Why can’t people accept that different institutions can have different definitions of marriage.  
 

religious marriage can be defined as between a man and woman both of that religion and approved by whatever authority has domain.  That institution should have every right to approve or not approve of unions within the context of their religious community. And it’s up to that religious community to decide how they want to evolve accept or hold rigid in their beliefs. 

 

legal marriage can be defined as a state of partnership between two humans that relates to legal matters like survivorship, tax law that aligns with the majority specific to that topic. 
 

hell a traditional leader of my wife’s family and my families religions would have refused to wed us. 

[ChiGoose]

14 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

Why can’t people accept that different institutions can have different definitions of marriage.  
 

religious marriage can be defined as between a man and woman both of that religion and approved by whatever authority has domain.  That institution should have every right to approve or not approve of unions within the context of their religious community. And it’s up to that religious community to decide how they want to evolve accept or hold rigid in their beliefs. 

 

legal marriage can be defined as a state of partnership between two humans that relates to legal matters like survivorship, tax law that aligns with the majority specific to that topic. 
 

hell a traditional leader of my wife’s family and my families religions would have refused to wed us. 

That’s basically what the respect for marriage act does. 

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

6 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

That’s basically what the respect for marriage act does. 

Ok good so there is language specifically allowing religions to recognize, perform or support marriage constitution based on their intrinsic values without penalty or threat of discrimination lawsuits ? 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

On 11/20/2022 at 7:35 PM, sherpa said:

 

The wishes of a gay couple do not compel a requirement that their union be sanctioned by a formal acknowledgement of it.

 

If some want to, so be it. They can find that venue without problem.

 

Regarding your lack of belief, which i have no problem with, I would refer you to the exact claim, made by Jesus, that people are not equipped to handle it.

 

Matthew 16:

 

13   When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”

14   They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”

15   “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”

16    Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

17   Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.

 

I’ve enjoyed reading your thoughts over the past few days, especially in light of some of the responses you’ve gotten.  It seemed as if a simple thumbs up emoji didn’t quite cover it.  

[ChiGoose]

9 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

Ok good so there is language specifically allowing religions to recognize, perform or support marriage constitution based on their intrinsic values without penalty or threat of discrimination lawsuits ? 

I have not read through the entire bill yet, but my understanding is yes. 
 

More than 40 religious institutions worked with Congress on the bill to ensure religious freedom and it ended up being endorsed by several faiths, including the Mormon Church.