Respect for Marriage Act makes Congresswoman cry real tears.

[Shadow Wolf]

Luckily not. But, if people don't want me to care about the issue, then they should not speak about it to me. Otherwise, it is ridiculous to expect me not to care. It can be compared to a person who smears a cake to other persons face and then asks why the other has cake on his face.

Or it's like when I saw my adult nephew go out in public in a onesy. It was cringe worthy, I strongly disapproved, then I realized it's not actually hurting me and is only bothering me because I was focusing on it. Then I applied a little thought and realized its such a low priority to me I have no real reason to care because I could not find an objective, concrete answer beyond I was raised different (and that doesn't automatically make me right).

 

[Heyo]

Or it's like when I saw my adult nephew go out in public in a onesy. It was cringe worthy, I strongly disapproved, then I realized it's not actually hurting me and is only bothering me because I was focusing on it. Then I applied a little thought and realized its such a low priority to me I have no real reason to care because I could not find an objective, concrete answer beyond I was raised different (and that doesn't automatically make me right).

Congratulations to "Certified People sTabber". I only realized that now, am I late?

And congratulations for the ability to discern your problems from others problems.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Congratulations to "Certified People sTabber". I only realized that now, am I late?

Recent enough I'm still recovering from the case of post-covid crap I got from my externship. Worked out too, because I finished up on my last night, went home, and woke up the next morning with what I thought was just some sinus congestion, but the meds for it wasn't helping, I thought I might actually be getting worse, started wondering if I had the flu, started shivering and then decided to test myself for covid. And I am glad I'm vaccinated because this would be horrible thing to endure if it's worse. It's been awful even with.
I will say though, deniers and down players should talk to some people with fibromyalgia. The fatigue and body aches have been basically about the same for me, so why risk needlessly inflicting yourself with potentially worse than the symptoms of a disabling condition?

 

[wellwisher]

Vicky Hartzler (R, Missouri) cried real tears as she begged her congressional comrades not to pass the bill, which she called "misguided and dangerous." Thank goodness, her own nephew, who is gay, had the cojones to to put her firmly in her place.

Why, I really have to ask, does she, or anybody else in the world give a rat's tiny hiney who I marry, who you marry, or whether we marry or not?

Why does she think -- AND I WOULD REALLY LIKE AN ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION FROM RELIGIOUS PEOPLE -- that it is robbing her of her "religious freedom" to deny soimebody else the right to live their life as they see fit? Is "religious freedom" really about the freedom to order other people to do what you want them to, and not to do what you don't want them to?

The new gender based indoctrination, for human sexuality, may have unintentionally undermined the idea of same sex marriage. According to the new fad, sex is not a fixed concept based on biology; birth DNA. The new fad is to assume sex is more fluid and whimsical based on imaginary whims du jour.

The term same sex marriage may now not be clear cut enough to future prevent discrimination in the court of law. Or same sex marriage, if accepted, may cause problems with the concept of gender fluidity, that is trying to infiltrate the legal system. Legal often comes down to semantics. Gays and Lesbian may have to take a side; DNA versus imagination, or else the term same sex marriage may need to be scrubbed for legal reasons. Just giving a heads up.

 

[Revoltingest]

The new gender based indoctrination, for human sexuality, may have unintentionally undermined the idea of same sex marriage. According to the new fad, sex is not a fixed concept based on biology; birth DNA. The new fad is to assume sex is more fluid and whimsical based on imaginary whims du jour.

If by "sex" you meant "gender", then the problem
here is that it's "not fixed" for some people. The
state should not presume that if some are "fluid",
then traditional genders may be imposed upon all.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The new gender based indoctrination, for human sexuality, may have unintentionally undermined the idea of same sex marriage. According to the new fad, sex is not a fixed concept based on biology; birth DNA. The new fad is to assume sex is more fluid and whimsical based on imaginary whims du jour.

The term same sex marriage may now not be clear cut enough to future prevent discrimination in the court of law. Or same sex marriage, if accepted, may cause problems with the concept of gender fluidity, that is trying to infiltrate the legal system. Legal often comes down to semantics. Gays and Lesbian may have to take a side; DNA versus imagination, or else the term same sex marriage may need to be scrubbed for legal reasons. Just giving a heads up.

It seems to me that you are very badly mis-reading the available science on this issue -- either that or you're not reading it at all, and instead getting your notions from mis-informed web posters.

 

[metis]

The new gender based indoctrination, for human sexuality, may have unintentionally undermined the idea of same sex marriage. According to the new fad, sex is not a fixed concept based on biology; birth DNA. The new fad is to assume sex is more fluid and whimsical based on imaginary whims du jour.

As has been posted many times, sexuality, in terms of attraction, is not determined by whether one has a penis or vagina but is determined by the hormone balance.

The term same sex marriage may now not be clear cut enough to future prevent discrimination in the court of law. Or same sex marriage, if accepted, may cause problems with the concept of gender fluidity, that is trying to infiltrate the legal system. Legal often comes down to semantics. Gays and Lesbian may have to take a side; DNA versus imagination, or else the term same sex marriage may need to be scrubbed for legal reasons. Just giving a heads up.

So, what's it to you if two gays want to get married?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Just giving a heads up.

That we need to watch because the ground you stand on is not solid and we might get hit with a rock when it crashes down.

 

[TLK Valentine]

The new gender based indoctrination, for human sexuality, may have unintentionally undermined the idea of same sex marriage. According to the new fad, sex is not a fixed concept based on biology; birth DNA. The new fad is to assume sex is more fluid and whimsical based on imaginary whims du jour.

The term same sex marriage may now not be clear cut enough to future prevent discrimination in the court of law. Or same sex marriage, if accepted, may cause problems with the concept of gender fluidity, that is trying to infiltrate the legal system. Legal often comes down to semantics. Gays and Lesbian may have to take a side; DNA versus imagination, or else the term same sex marriage may need to be scrubbed for legal reasons. Just giving a heads up.

Seems that the simplest solution would therefore be to stop differentiating between "same-sex" marriage or "opposite-sex" marriage, and just call it... marriage.

Two people get married, and their marriage is valid and binding -- regardless of what genders they were, are, or may be in the future.

 

[GardenLady]

Let's see if you realize gun rights are actually listed in the Bill of Rights. It's called the 2nd amendment.

No rights are absolute; there is much case law on this. The classic example is that free speech does not include shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, nor does it include incitement to insurrection.

We don't allow citizens to have tanks and stinger missiles. I believe there is no legitimate reason (such as hunting or safety) for a private citizen to own an AR-15, bump stock, or high capacity magazines.

Many 2A people complain about the state I live in, specifically because they can't have bump stock or a high capacity magazines, and handguns (NOT long guns) must be registered. Oh, the horror! Cry me a river.

What I find particularly ironic is that many of these same people claim to be Christians but ignore that Jesus said those who take up the sword will perish by the sword.

 

[Messianic Israelite]

Vicky Hartzler (R, Missouri) cried real tears as she begged her congressional comrades not to pass the bill, which she called "misguided and dangerous." Thank goodness, her own nephew, who is gay, had the cojones to to put her firmly in her place.

Why, I really have to ask, does she, or anybody else in the world give a rat's tiny hiney who I marry, who you marry, or whether we marry or not?

Why does she think -- AND I WOULD REALLY LIKE AN ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION FROM RELIGIOUS PEOPLE -- that it is robbing her of her "religious freedom" to deny soimebody else the right to live their life as they see fit? Is "religious freedom" really about the freedom to order other people to do what you want them to, and not to do what you don't want them to?

Good evening Evangelicalhumanist. I saw this problem brewing over 10 years ago here in England. It was over 10 years ago that the Bishop of Salisbury, Nicholas Holtam, said he thinks that Chr-stians need to reinterpret the Bible to accept gay marriage. In a letter to the London Telegraph, he wrote: "Sometimes Chr-stians have had to rethink the priorities of the G-spel in the light of experience". That was Bishop Holtam, who was appointed to the role in 2011 and you may recall him saying the following thing: "attitudes towards homosexuality have changed 'considerably' over the last 50 years and allowing gay marriage would actually strengthen (sic) the institution"

It is true that attitudes toward homosexuality and gay marriage have changed over the years, but it is because the populace is being worn down by the media and special interest groups to accept this behavior. What was an abomination to Yahweh then is still an abomination to Him today. If Yahweh does not change, then why should we? "For I, Yahweh, change not; therefore, you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed" (Malachi 3:6).

Even Queen Elizabeth II came out in favor of same-sex marriage, thus clearing the way for the legalization of same-sex marriages in England and Wales. Still looking back, you may recall that then Prime Minister David Cameron, the leader of the tradition-minded Conservatives proposed this legislation, even though backbenches of his own party sought to derail the bill. Back then, the Washington Post reported "The public seemed to take it for granted that gay marriage should be a part of British life. It was perhaps a sign of how Britain has evolved (sic) in past decades into a much more cosmopolitan nation than its starchy, traditionalist image would suggest."

My question to you is , Do you think that Almighty Yahweh will evolve in His stand against this practice, after He has declared it to be an abomination? Absolutely not.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Good evening Evangelicalhumanist. I saw this problem brewing over 10 years ago here in England. It was over 10 years ago that the Bishop of Salisbury, Nicholas Holtam, said he thinks that Chr-stians need to reinterpret the Bible to accept gay marriage. In a letter to the London Telegraph, he wrote: "Sometimes Chr-stians have had to rethink the priorities of the G-spel in the light of experience". That was Bishop Holtam, who was appointed to the role in 2011 and you may recall him saying the following thing: "attitudes towards homosexuality have changed 'considerably' over the last 50 years and allowing gay marriage would actually strengthen (sic) the institution"

It is true that attitudes toward homosexuality and gay marriage have changed over the years, but it is because the populace is being worn down by the media and special interest groups to accept this behavior. What was an abomination to Yahweh then is still an abomination to Him today. If Yahweh does not change, then why should we? "For I, Yahweh, change not; therefore, you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed" (Malachi 3:6).

Even Queen Elizabeth II came out in favor of same-sex marriage, thus clearing the way for the legalization of same-sex marriages in England and Wales. Still looking back, you may recall that then Prime Minister David Cameron, the leader of the tradition-minded Conservatives proposed this legislation, even though backbenches of his own party sought to derail the bill. Back then, the Washington Post reported "The public seemed to take it for granted that gay marriage should be a part of British life. It was perhaps a sign of how Britain has evolved (sic) in past decades into a much more cosmopolitan nation than its starchy, traditionalist image would suggest."

My question to you is , Do you think that Almighty Yahweh will evolve in His stand against this practice, after He has declared it to be an abomination? Absolutely not.

For now, let me just say this: if you think that God (or "Almighty Yahweh" as you seem to prefer) doesn't change -- then I do not think you have understood what you've read in the only books we have that tell us anything about Him at all.

We can begin, for example, with Genesis 6:6 "And the LORD regretted that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. So the LORD said, “I will blot out man, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—every man and beast and crawling creature and bird of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them.”…

You might recall, that only a few books earlier, "the Lord saw that it was good...." This, apparently, was a mistake. A mistake He decided to correct (through the simple expedient of killing pretty much everybody). This is, just so you know, the VERY DEFINITION OF A CHANGE -- of opinion, stance and intention.

 

[TLK Valentine]

It is true that attitudes toward homosexuality and gay marriage have changed over the years, but it is because the populace is being worn down by the media and special interest groups to accept this behavior.

That sounds too much like envy -- they're influencing the populace better than the church?

My question to you is , Do you think that Almighty Yahweh will evolve in His stand against this practice, after He has declared it to be an abomination? Absolutely not.

You're probably right -- clearly we have evolved beyond the need for Almighty Yahweh to tell us what to do and think.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

@Evangelicalhumanist

My understanding is that the Respect for Marriage Act does NOT guarantee the right for gays to marry. It merely says that if any given state decides to allow gay marriage, the federal government will recognize it. The option is out there for states to choose not to allow gay marriage.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

@Evangelicalhumanist

My understanding is that the Respect for Marriage Act does NOT guarantee the right for gays to marry. It merely says that if any given state decides to allow gay marriage, the federal government will recognize it. The option is out there for states to choose not to allow gay marriage.

Then your understanding is not quite complete.

The Respect for Marriage Act repeals the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), requires the U.S. federal government and all U.S. states and territories to recognize the validity of same-sex and interracial civil marriages in the United States, and protects religious liberty.

Now, while this means that a state, say Ohio, can deny a same-sex or mixed-race couple the right to marry in that state, if the couple just hop over to Pennsylvania and get married there, then go back home, Ohio is required to recognize that marriage as valid.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then your understanding is not quite correct.

The Respect for Marriage Act repeals the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), requires the U.S. federal government and all U.S. states and territories to recognize the validity of same-sex and interracial civil marriages in the United States, and protects religious liberty.

Now, while this means that a state, say Ohio, can deny a same-sex or mix-race couple the right to marry in that state, if the couple just hop over to Pennsylvania and get married there, then go back home, Ohio is required to recognize that marriage as valid.

I am going to have to say that both of you are making the same claim.

As long as any one state performs gay marriage that bill does protect the process. Let's say that Alabama had a "come to Jesus" moment and realized that marriage equality was the right position to have and legalized gay marriage. Meanwhile all seven squared other states went insane and did not allow it to occur in their own states. Gay marriage would still be legal and recognized across the entire US. People would need to go to Alabama to get it done.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I am going to have to say that both of you are making the same claim.

As long as any one state performs gay marriage that bill does protect the process. Let's say that Alabama had a "come to Jesus" moment and realized that marriage equality was the right position to have and legalized gay marriage. Meanwhile all seven squared other states went insane and did not allow it to occur in their own states. Gay marriage would still be legal and recognized across the entire US. People would need to go to Alabama to get it done.

Just slightly disagree because @IndigoChild5559 stated that the Federal Government will recognize it. This is incomplete: while the 7-squared other states may not perform such marriages, they are also required to recognize them as valid.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Good evening Evangelicalhumanist. I saw this problem brewing over 10 years ago here in England. It was over 10 years ago that the Bishop of Salisbury, Nicholas Holtam, said he thinks that Chr-stians need to reinterpret the Bible to accept gay marriage. In a letter to the London Telegraph, he wrote: "Sometimes Chr-stians have had to rethink the priorities of the G-spel in the light of experience". That was Bishop Holtam, who was appointed to the role in 2011 and you may recall him saying the following thing: "attitudes towards homosexuality have changed 'considerably' over the last 50 years and allowing gay marriage would actually strengthen (sic) the institution"

It is true that attitudes toward homosexuality and gay marriage have changed over the years, but it is because the populace is being worn down by the media and special interest groups to accept this behavior. What was an abomination to Yahweh then is still an abomination to Him today. If Yahweh does not change, then why should we? "For I, Yahweh, change not; therefore, you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed" (Malachi 3:6).

Even Queen Elizabeth II came out in favor of same-sex marriage, thus clearing the way for the legalization of same-sex marriages in England and Wales. Still looking back, you may recall that then Prime Minister David Cameron, the leader of the tradition-minded Conservatives proposed this legislation, even though backbenches of his own party sought to derail the bill. Back then, the Washington Post reported "The public seemed to take it for granted that gay marriage should be a part of British life. It was perhaps a sign of how Britain has evolved (sic) in past decades into a much more cosmopolitan nation than its starchy, traditionalist image would suggest."

My question to you is , Do you think that Almighty Yahweh will evolve in His stand against this practice, after He has declared it to be an abomination? Absolutely not.

Um, there are a bunch of other abominations 'Almighty Yahweh' hates. Too bad you folks don't spend some time screaming about them.

Who is being harmed by gay marriage? Are you?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Just slightly disagree because while the 7-squared other states may not perform such marriages, they are also required to recognize them as valid.

I haven't heard this. Do you have a link to an article that specifically states this? I'm not trying to challenge you. I just want to understand what is happening.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Then your understanding is not quite complete.

The Respect for Marriage Act repeals the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), requires the U.S. federal government and all U.S. states and territories to recognize the validity of same-sex and interracial civil marriages in the United States, and protects religious liberty.

Now, while this means that a state, say Ohio, can deny a same-sex or mixed-race couple the right to marry in that state, if the couple just hop over to Pennsylvania and get married there, then go back home, Ohio is required to recognize that marriage as valid.

I'm not saying you are wrong. But do you have a link to an article that specifically says that? I'd like to try to stay informed.