SSM bill passes the Senate 61-36

When intolerance is defined as “any disagreement at all with my “enforced tolerant” view,” you’re right, Professor. It’s dumb. You clearly have the credentials to know and understand dumb and to redefine “tolerant.”

You do realize that there might be tolerant individuals who, cognizant of what the constitution protects, might suggest that gay marriage is antithetical to securing the blessings of Liberty unto our posterity, right? Or did you miss that?
yeah

somehow I missed how intolerant people are tolerant
 
How does gay marriage in any way negatively affect the United States' posterity?
First, learn the word and what it means. (Hint: offspring.) Second: Relearn biology. Two sexes not twenty-five. You
You’ll eventually come to grips with the concept that the founding fathers foresaw a future for freedom, someone on to whom to pass the freedoms won from generation to generation…intimate friendships, bereft of hope or future, not so high on their list,
 
Careful…or folks will suspect your credentials match the “professor’s” Admit it. You had to look up the word. The constitution is a great read. You should try it once in your life.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
So you support the ability of your gay relatives to marry the persons they love?
 
So you support the ability of your gay relatives to marry the persons they love?
Nope. Marriage is between a man and a woman, but that doesn’t mean I hate my gay relatives. Me not supporting their lifestyle doesn’t equate to hating them.
 
First, learn the word and what it means. (Hint: offspring.) Second: Relearn biology. Two sexes not twenty-five. You
You’ll eventually come to grips with the concept that the founding fathers foresaw a future for freedom, someone on to whom to pass the freedoms won from generation to generation…intimate friendships, bereft of hope or future, not so high on their list,
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.
 
Nope. Marriage is between a man and a woman, but that doesn’t mean I hate my gay relatives. Me not supporting their lifestyle doesn’t equate to hating them.
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.
 
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.
Well, as a non Christian you wouldn’t understand.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BMS
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.
Not an argument. There are NO homosexual relationships that promise a posterity. Adoption isn’t an argument, because the risk there is spreading the practice on to a second generation with the same impotent argument.

Intimacy was not the promise of the constitution. A future generation of freedom was. There is nothing to boast of in intimacy. A good sex life is not bragging rights for long. Even a great one. Your focus has shifted, and some say not for a better future but for a moment of pleasure.
 
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.
No. It means the sinner is claiming as “rights” what violates Law. The car has no “right” to a tank full of sugar, even though sugar is sweet.

The sinner will not read the owners’ manual, because he knows what he’ll find, and he’d rather die than accept that the manufacturer understands him better than he does himself.
 
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.

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?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BMS
Not an argument. There are NO homosexual relationships that promise a posterity. Adoption isn’t an argument, because the risk there is spreading the practice on to a second generation with the same impotent argument.

Intimacy was not the promise of the constitution. A future generation of freedom was. There is nothing to boast of in intimacy. A good sex life is not bragging rights for long. Even a great one. Your focus has shifted, and some say not for a better future but for a moment of pleasure.
Oh, please. You think people get married to establish some sort of familial posterity?

Or do they get married because they love one another and want to spend their lives together?

And while the constitution certainly was looking to establish a stable govt going forward, they were not looking to establish that at the level of individual marriages.
 
No. It means the sinner is claiming as “rights” what violates Law. The car has no “right” to a tank full of sugar, even though sugar is sweet.

The sinner will not read the owners’ manual, because he knows what he’ll find, and he’d rather die than accept that the manufacturer understands him better than he does himself.
SSM is not against the law as it stands right now. So gays do have the right to marriage.

If you are referring the the bible as the owners' manual, well that may apply to Christians, but it does not apply to a secular nation.
 
The bill also includes protections for interracial marriage but has carve outs for religions that have problems with homosexuality.

12 Republicans voted with the majority, and no Dems voted against the bill.

There were 3 who did not vote: Ben Sasse, Raphael Warnock, Pat Toomey.

McConnell voted against it even though he is in an interracial marriage.

The bill now goes back to the House, and then on to Biden.
I looked over the text of the bill. Quite reasonable, no hidden little add-ons like politicans love to do. Hope it passes.
 
Back
Top