Evidence for God from Science

BavarianWheels wrote:

Harry12345 wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote:

Harry12345 wrote:Banning homosexuality is very very different from refraining from recognising same-sex unions.

I would vote AGAINST a ban on homosexuality.
I would vote AGAINST states recognising same sex unions.

There is a big difference!

So you'd vote for their right to be homosexual and at the same time vote against them being able to "marry"?

Slightly paradoxical isn't it?

Nope.
Homosexuality being legal = homosexuals doing as they please, as per a free society
Same gender marriage being recognised by the state = state granting rights to couples

See the difference? One is being free from state interference. The other is getting specific benefits from the state. The two are at ends!

And how does this affect society?

Why is it the proponents of Prop 8 are using "the children" as the excuse

Why is it proponents of Prop 8 are pushing this through churches?

What will happen if same-sex-couple gain rights from the state?

Is it the dollar you're worried about? If so, how so?
.
.

Well, in the UK Civil Partnerships have been legal for 3 years, and National Insurance rates haven't gone up save for the usual inflation rate... so I guess I'm stuck here.

Think of it this way: what reason does the state have for offering same-sex couples the same benefits as married couples?

Harry12345 wrote:Think of it this way: what reason does the state have for offering same-sex couples the same benefits as married couples?

Insurance rates have gone up here too...and same-sex marriges are not legal yet...

The Proposition is to "save marriage"...what reason does the state have in offering ANYONE benefits?
.
.

BavarianWheels wrote:

Harry12345 wrote:Think of it this way: what reason does the state have for offering same-sex couples the same benefits as married couples?

Insurance rates have gone up here too...and same-sex marriges are not legal yet...

The Proposition is to "save marriage"...what reason does the state have in offering ANYONE benefits?
.
.

Probably to promote raising children in the best possible enviroment.

Should, then, Christians persue a law against fornication outside of marriage? Should there be a Prop. # that makes fornication outside of marriage illegal? If it's not being done, then we as Christians are condoning such a sinful act...no? Do we just pay lipservice to those acts that offend us more... i.e. homosexual marriage?

Fornification outside marraige does offend me. And we are paying for it in our society. But then again, nobody is wanting to declare having sex outside marriage a "right" or legal. If they were, I'd be against it.

Look, what people do in their own bedrooms IS their own business. It is not currently a proposition to declare having multiple partners a right or something equal to marriage.

By declaring marrage between homosexuality okay we are condoning the act.

...Christians that vote hoping this will start to wipe out sin (starting with the homosexuals as this is a thorn in the side of Christianity) as they think the world will come to some utopia by their votes. I have a few working here with me.

Nope, to be honest, I have no delusions whatsoever about the effect this would have on the number of homosexuals or homosexual acts. And to be perfectly honest, if there were no PUSH for this to be APPROVED and CONDONED, they are, by rights of any American Citizen, free to pursue happiness like anyone else, by whatever sins they want.

For instance, take drug and alcohol use. Currently the laws pertain to what people do WHEN you are drunk or high (driving, disorderly conduct). But if there was a group of drug users who wanted a law that declared drug use to be perfectly fine then I WOULD oppose this.

I don't like homosexuality, I don't like heterosexual promiscuity. This wouldn't make utopia. But I'm not going to sit back and let them declare a sin not a sin.

I couldn't marry anyone. I have no authority to do so. As a Christian of certain beliefs, I would have to say 'no' had I the authority. However, I wouldn't hinder their right to marry each other as long as all parties were in agreement. What about the children? They'd have to find and pay for their own lawyers and hash it out as any other conventional marriage. What would be the difference you see? Each "couple" seeking to divorce would be treated as a separate "marriage". Nothing too difficult about it.

I find this absolutely ludicrous. And I can see this potentially coming to play not immediately but eventually in this nation. And yes, it will effect the nation, maybe not immediately, but each little change breaks down our society more and more

Harry12345 wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote:

Harry12345 wrote:Think of it this way: what reason does the state have for offering same-sex couples the same benefits as married couples?

Insurance rates have gone up here too...and same-sex marriges are not legal yet...

The Proposition is to "save marriage"...what reason does the state have in offering ANYONE benefits?

Probably to promote raising children in the best possible enviroment.

Wouldn't that be best dictated by the parent...In the home and not by the state?

I disagree with some things about the public school system so my kids have been sent to a private Christian school.
.
.

zoegirl wrote:

Should, then, Christians persue a law against fornication outside of marriage? Should there be a Prop. # that makes fornication outside of marriage illegal? If it's not being done, then we as Christians are condoning such a sinful act...no? Do we just pay lipservice to those acts that offend us more... i.e. homosexual marriage?

Fornification outside marraige does offend me. And we are paying for it in our society. But then again, nobody is wanting to declare having sex outside marriage a "right" or legal. If they were, I'd be against it.

Look, what people do in their own bedrooms IS their own business. It is not currently a proposition to declare having multiple partners a right or something equal to marriage.

By declaring marrage between homosexuality okay we are condoning the act.

...Christians that vote hoping this will start to wipe out sin (starting with the homosexuals as this is a thorn in the side of Christianity) as they think the world will come to some utopia by their votes. I have a few working here with me.

Nope, to be honest, I have no delusions whatsoever about the effect this would have on the number of homosexuals or homosexual acts. And to be perfectly honest, if there were no PUSH for this to be APPROVED and CONDONED, they are, by rights of any American Citizen, free to pursue happiness like anyone else, by whatever sins they want.

For instance, take drug and alcohol use. Currently the laws pertain to what people do WHEN you are drunk or high (driving, disorderly conduct). But if there was a group of drug users who wanted a law that declared drug use to be perfectly fine then I WOULD oppose this.

I don't like homosexuality, I don't like heterosexual promiscuity. This wouldn't make utopia. But I'm not going to sit back and let them declare a sin not a sin.

I couldn't marry anyone. I have no authority to do so. As a Christian of certain beliefs, I would have to say 'no' had I the authority. However, I wouldn't hinder their right to marry each other as long as all parties were in agreement. What about the children? They'd have to find and pay for their own lawyers and hash it out as any other conventional marriage. What would be the difference you see? Each "couple" seeking to divorce would be treated as a separate "marriage". Nothing too difficult about it.

I find this absolutely ludicrous. And I can see this potentially coming to play not immediately but eventually in this nation. And yes, it will effect the nation, maybe not immediately, but each little change breaks down our society more and more

So in essence...if it's not a Prop...you're not worried about it. Fornication, being a sin, is okay since you're not doing anything about it, basically a remaining neutral = condoning fornication. Interesting.

I'd like you to simply name the things that will happen if homosexuals gain marital rights in the U.S. that WILL NOT HAPPEN should Prop. 8 be successful in "saving marriage".

Ludicrous? How so? You asked how they would sort out the kids...and I told you...the same way they sort it out now, and you call this ludicrous?
.
.

BavarianWheels wrote: So in essence...if it's not a Prop...you're not worried about it. Fornication, being a sin, is okay since you're not doing anything about it, basically a remaining neutral = condoning fornication. Interesting.

Again, putting words in my mouth. I would worry about but I would not necessarily need to hunt them down and put them in jail for what they do.

This is America after all. YOu can do whatever you want, pursue happiness in whatever sin you want within limits. I have the right to convince you otherwise. But then again, those that are promiscuous aren't asking us to declare it right. I am not condoning anything. And if tomorrow there is a bill propsed that would declare promiscuity a right and moral I would oppose it.

I'd like you to simply name the things that will happen if homosexuals gain marital rights in the U.S. that WILL NOT HAPPEN should Prop. 8 be successful in "saving marriage".

Do I think that somehow there is going to be some grand orgy in the streets? Is that what you think I will say? No.

But the morality in our nation is slipping and this would be another link in the chain.

Ludicrous? How so? You asked how they would sort out the kids...and I told you...the same way they sort it out now, and you call this ludicrous?

No I meant the idea that you would support multiple people getting married ludicrous. I do think there are very real logistical problems child custody laws. You really think that this would have no effect on children? Being tossed between multiple "parents" WE already have that with divorced, remarried, step parents and there is an entire generation of children who have no idea what a faithful marriage looks like. And you would be ok with continuing this by giving permission to these bizarre unbiblical marriages.

I am not saying that what we have don with heterosexual marriage is okay. But I am also saying that this in no way means that we should declare homosexual marriage great. People love to bring this up as somehow an arguement for homosexual marriage, that because we have screwed it up means that they should get a chance.

http://cbs13.com/local/proposition.8.re ... 56637.html

Prop 8 won!!!

Harry12345 wrote:http://cbs13.com/local/proposition.8.re ... 56637.html

Prop 8 won!!!

Yes thank God.... I thought we were going to lose it. Many people forget that California is made of many Latino voters who are strong Catholics. Without them we would have lost...

I suggest you savour this victory; with Obama planning to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, California will be forced to recognise same sex marriages performed in other states... constitutional ban being neither here nor there.

zoegirl wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote:So in essence...if it's not a Prop...you're not worried about it. Fornication, being a sin, is okay since you're not doing anything about it, basically a remaining neutral = condoning fornication. Interesting.

Again, putting words in my mouth. I would worry about but I would not necessarily need to hunt them down and put them in jail for what they do.

This is America after all. YOu can do whatever you want, pursue happiness in whatever sin you want within limits. I have the right to convince you otherwise. But then again, those that are promiscuous aren't asking us to declare it right. I am not condoning anything. And if tomorrow there is a bill propsed that would declare promiscuity a right and moral I would oppose it.

Again...not putting words, just looking at the logical implications/conclusion.

zoegirl wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote:I'd like you to simply name the things that will happen if homosexuals gain marital rights in the U.S. that WILL NOT HAPPEN should Prop. 8 be successful in "saving marriage".

Do I think that somehow there is going to be some grand orgy in the streets? Is that what you think I will say? No.

But the morality in our nation is slipping and this would be another link in the chain.

No...I'm asking exactly what I asked...what will happen if homosexuals gain marital rights? You say morality is slipping? Do you not understand that you're saying morality is slipping...aside from homosexual marital rights! Are they not already being covered on news and portrayed on television shows getting married and the like? To think that a simple piece of paper would do anymore to worsen the situation is ludicrous.

zoegirl wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote:Ludicrous? How so? You asked how they would sort out the kids...and I told you...the same way they sort it out now, and you call this ludicrous?

No I meant the idea that you would support multiple people getting married ludicrous. I do think there are very real logistical problems child custody laws. You really think that this would have no effect on children? Being tossed between multiple "parents" WE already have that with divorced, remarried, step parents and there is an entire generation of children who have no idea what a faithful marriage looks like. And you would be ok with continuing this by giving permission to these bizarre unbiblical marriages.

Saying I would support it is a bit strong. Rather I wouldn't hinder them. Much like no one is hindering fornication now. If we already have it...what's so bad about having a longer line at the court? A whole generation of kids who have no idea what a faithful marriage looks like? And all this despite the fact we've kept the sanctity of marriage. I don't worry about other kids...just mine.

zoegirl wrote:I am not saying that what we have don with heterosexual marriage is okay. But I am also saying that this in no way means that we should declare homosexual marriage great. People love to bring this up as somehow an arguement for homosexual marriage, that because we have screwed it up means that they should get a chance.

So are you saying that the only ones allowed to desecrate the "sanctity of marriage" are heterosexuals?

We seem to forget the words of scripture...

Mark 10:9 NIV wrote:Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.

If God's will is to not put a blessing on their "marriage" as we believe is the case...why should we worry if they get married by the State?
.
.

Harry12345 wrote:I suggest you savour this victory; with Obama planning to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, California will be forced to recognise same sex marriages performed in other states... constitutional ban being neither here nor there.

LOL...if this is true...Prop 8 passed...but Obama trumps it. LOL! And Christians support this guy!
.
.

BavarianWheels wrote:
LOL...if this is true...Prop 8 passed...but Obama trumps it. LOL! And Christians support this guy!
.
.

Not All!
-
-
-

B. W. wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote:
LOL...if this is true...Prop 8 passed...but Obama trumps it. LOL! And Christians support this guy!

Not All!

Enough...the majority.
.
.