Same sex marriage bill passes procedural vote in Senate

Stealing is against the principles of many religions. Let’s repeal them.
But it's not against, solely religious principles.
(Though, I know some Christians like to claim ownership of the idea that stealing is bad...)

Something like the First Commandment could not be made into law, because that violates a specific religious principle, but no non-religious ones.
 
But it's not against, solely religious principles.
(Though, I know some Christians like to claim ownership of the idea that stealing is bad...)

Something like the First Commandment could not be made into law, because that violates a specific religious principle, but no non-religious ones.
The bottom line is the Constitution does not exclude people who have a religious foundation from seeking to influence laws and policy
 
The bottom line is the Constitution does not exclude people who have a religious foundation from seeking to influence laws and policy
But it does exclude laws that "respect an estalishment of religion", i.e. are motivated solely by religious sensibilities.
 
But it does exclude laws that "respect an estalishment of religion", i.e. are motivated solely by religious sensibilities.
To determine the sole motivation of a persona mind requires the ability to read minds. A task mo one can do. But this ability is claimed by atheists to exclude people from participating in the process.
 
To determine the sole motivation of a persona mind requires the ability to read minds. A task mo one can do. But this ability is claimed by atheists to exclude people from participating in the process.
"No god is to be worshipped but Yahweh" is a transparently religious intent.
 
When I said I "missed that", I thought you were referring to a list a reasons you had presented, as opposed to links to someone else's arguments.

LOL sure, okay.

If you have arguments, why not present them in your own words?

There are no secular reasons against SSM.

If you read the links, you'd see that there are plenty of secular reasons to oppose SSM. OMG vibise. Just put in the minimal amount of effort, please, to educate yourself.

None have been presented in the court cases on this issue.

Uh....

2006, New York Court of Appeals, in a decision against SSM, said:

We hold that the New York Constitution does not compel recognition of marriages between members of the same sex. Whether such marriages should be recognized is a question to be addressed by the Legislature.

First, the Legislature could rationally decide that, for the welfare of children, it is more important to promote stability, and to avoid instability, in opposite-sex than in same-sex relationships. Heterosexual intercourse has a natural tendency to lead to the birth of children; homosexual intercourse does not. Despite the advances of science, it remains true that the vast majority of children are born as a result of a sexual relationship between a man and a woman, and the Legislature could find that this will continue to be true. The Legislature could also find that such relationships are all too often casual or temporary. It could find that an important function of marriage is to create more stability and permanence in the relationships that cause children to be born. It thus could choose to offer an inducement -- in the form of marriage and its attendant benefits -- to opposite-sex couples who make a solemn, long-term commitment to each other.

The Legislature could find that this rationale for marriage does not apply with comparable force to same-sex couples. These couples can become parents by adoption, or by artificial insemination or other technological marvels, but they do not become parents as a result of accident or impulse. The Legislature could find that unstable relationships between people of the opposite sex present a greater danger that children will be born into or grow up in unstable homes than is the case with same-sex couples, and thus that promoting stability in opposite-sex relationships will help children more. This is one reason why the Legislature could rationally offer the benefits of marriage to opposite-sex couples only
.

There is a second reason: The Legislature could rationally believe that it is better, other things being equal, for children to grow up with both a mother and a father. Intuition and experience suggest that a child benefits from having before his or her eyes, every day, living models of what both a man and a woman are like. It is obvious that there are exceptions to this general rule -- some children who never know their fathers, or their mothers, do far better than some who grow up with parents of both sexes -- but the Legislature could find that the general rule will usually hold.

And...

The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude.

Are you now going to claim that the New York State Court of Appeals, in ruling against SSM in 2006, was using *religious* arguments here?

Again, if you'd only put in just the tiniest bit of effort to educate yourself on this, you wouldn't come off so ignorant. ("ignorant" here isn't a slam...it's the proper word to use to highlight someone's lack of knowledge)


*See: https://www.npr.org/2006/07/06/5538225/new-yorks-high-court-upholds-gay-marriage-ban to learn more about this case.
 
Last edited:
LOL sure, okay.



If you read the links, you'd see that there are plenty of secular reasons to oppose SSM. OMG vibise. Just put in the minimal amount of effort, please, to educate yourself.



Uh....

2006, New York Court of Appeals, in a decision against SSM, said:

We hold that the New York Constitution does not compel recognition of marriages between members of the same sex. Whether such marriages should be recognized is a question to be addressed by the Legislature.

First, the Legislature could rationally decide that, for the welfare of children, it is more important to promote stability, and to avoid instability, in opposite-sex than in same-sex relationships. Heterosexual intercourse has a natural tendency to lead to the birth of children; homosexual intercourse does not. Despite the advances of science, it remains true that the vast majority of children are born as a result of a sexual relationship between a man and a woman, and the Legislature could find that this will continue to be true. The Legislature could also find that such relationships are all too often casual or temporary. It could find that an important function of marriage is to create more stability and permanence in the relationships that cause children to be born. It thus could choose to offer an inducement -- in the form of marriage and its attendant benefits -- to opposite-sex couples who make a solemn, long-term commitment to each other.

The Legislature could find that this rationale for marriage does not apply with comparable force to same-sex couples. These couples can become parents by adoption, or by artificial insemination or other technological marvels, but they do not become parents as a result of accident or impulse. The Legislature could find that unstable relationships between people of the opposite sex present a greater danger that children will be born into or grow up in unstable homes than is the case with same-sex couples, and thus that promoting stability in opposite-sex relationships will help children more. This is one reason why the Legislature could rationally offer the benefits of marriage to opposite-sex couples only
.

There is a second reason: The Legislature could rationally believe that it is better, other things being equal, for children to grow up with both a mother and a father. Intuition and experience suggest that a child benefits from having before his or her eyes, every day, living models of what both a man and a woman are like. It is obvious that there are exceptions to this general rule -- some children who never know their fathers, or their mothers, do far better than some who grow up with parents of both sexes -- but the Legislature could find that the general rule will usually hold.

And...

The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude.

Are you now going to claim that the New York State Court of Appeals, in ruling against SSM in 2006, was using *religious* arguments here?

Again, if you'd only put in just the tiniest bit of effort to educate yourself on this, you wouldn't come off so ignorant. ("ignorant" here isn't a slam...it's the proper word to use to highlight someone's lack of knowledge)


*See: https://www.npr.org/2006/07/06/5538225/new-yorks-high-court-upholds-gay-marriage-ban to learn more about this case.
Thank you for brilliantly and dispositively dispatching the nonsense you were confronted with.
 
LOL sure, okay.



If you read the links, you'd see that there are plenty of secular reasons to oppose SSM. OMG vibise. Just put in the minimal amount of effort, please, to educate yourself.



Uh....

2006, New York Court of Appeals, in a decision against SSM, said:

We hold that the New York Constitution does not compel recognition of marriages between members of the same sex. Whether such marriages should be recognized is a question to be addressed by the Legislature.

First, the Legislature could rationally decide that, for the welfare of children, it is more important to promote stability, and to avoid instability, in opposite-sex than in same-sex relationships. Heterosexual intercourse has a natural tendency to lead to the birth of children; homosexual intercourse does not. Despite the advances of science, it remains true that the vast majority of children are born as a result of a sexual relationship between a man and a woman, and the Legislature could find that this will continue to be true. The Legislature could also find that such relationships are all too often casual or temporary. It could find that an important function of marriage is to create more stability and permanence in the relationships that cause children to be born. It thus could choose to offer an inducement -- in the form of marriage and its attendant benefits -- to opposite-sex couples who make a solemn, long-term commitment to each other.

The Legislature could find that this rationale for marriage does not apply with comparable force to same-sex couples. These couples can become parents by adoption, or by artificial insemination or other technological marvels, but they do not become parents as a result of accident or impulse. The Legislature could find that unstable relationships between people of the opposite sex present a greater danger that children will be born into or grow up in unstable homes than is the case with same-sex couples, and thus that promoting stability in opposite-sex relationships will help children more. This is one reason why the Legislature could rationally offer the benefits of marriage to opposite-sex couples only
.

There is a second reason: The Legislature could rationally believe that it is better, other things being equal, for children to grow up with both a mother and a father. Intuition and experience suggest that a child benefits from having before his or her eyes, every day, living models of what both a man and a woman are like. It is obvious that there are exceptions to this general rule -- some children who never know their fathers, or their mothers, do far better than some who grow up with parents of both sexes -- but the Legislature could find that the general rule will usually hold.

And...

The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude.

Are you now going to claim that the New York State Court of Appeals, in ruling against SSM in 2006, was using *religious* arguments here?

Again, if you'd only put in just the tiniest bit of effort to educate yourself on this, you wouldn't come off so ignorant. ("ignorant" here isn't a slam...it's the proper word to use to highlight someone's lack of knowledge)


*See: https://www.npr.org/2006/07/06/5538225/new-yorks-high-court-upholds-gay-marriage-ban to learn more about this case.
This is a statement from 2006. A lot has changed since then in how Americans view SSM. After all, in 2008 Obama said he opposed SSM. But that was then and this is now. A majority of Americans are OK with SSM.

The arguments that your links present are not generally applicable (not all heterosexual couples desire or can have children) or clearly false (homosexual unions are inherently unstable) or reflect homophobic bias.
 
This is a statement from 2006. A lot has changed since then in how Americans view SSM. After all, in 2008 Obama said he opposed SSM. But that was then and this is now. A majority of Americans are OK with SSM.

The arguments that your links present are not generally applicable (not all heterosexual couples desire or can have children) or clearly false (homosexual unions are inherently unstable) or reflect homophobic bias.
None of that has anything to do with a secular reasons to oppose SSM
 
This is a statement from 2006. A lot has changed since then in how Americans view SSM. After all, in 2008 Obama said he opposed SSM. But that was then and this is now.

So what? You claimed not only that there were no secular arguments against SSM, but that no secular arguments were used in court cases on SSM. You were wrong on both counts. Not only were secular arguments used, the NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS actually RULED against SSM using secular reasoning.

A majority of Americans are OK with SSM.

Irrelevant to the discussion we're having.

The arguments that your links present are not generally applicable (not all heterosexual couples desire or can have children) or clearly false (homosexual unions are inherently unstable) or reflect homophobic bias.

LOL now you're saying you don't agree with the secular arguments that were presented? I mean, that's fine, but your first argument was that there were NO secular arguments against SSM in the first place.

Vibise, there's a time and place to just admit you were wrong. This is one of those times. All you have to do is say, "sorry, yeah, I guess there were/are secular arguments against SSM, and those have been used in court cases, but I don't think they're valid."

Go ahead. You can do it.
 
So this is how the conversation has continued @vibise :

You to me: Your biological explanations always have religious tropes, and I've never seen a secular reason to be against SSM other than "ick"
Me to you: That's you projecting. I don't use religious reasoning, and I've posted several secular reasons to be against SSM.
You to me: Sorry, I must have missed that.
Me to you: No you didn't. I posted several and here are your actual replied to those posts.
You to me: See, I don't need to respond because I've already done so.
Me to you: LOL ok.
You to me: There are no secular reasons against SSM. None have been presented in court cases.
Me to you: Actually........just as one example, in 2006 the NY State Court of Appeals used secular reasoning to rule against SSM.
You to me: That was in 2006 and things are different now. Plus, those reasons aren't good.

LOL I mean.... LOL
 
This is a statement from 2006. A lot has changed since then in how Americans view SSM. After all, in 2008 Obama said he opposed SSM. But that was then and this is now. A majority of Americans are OK with SSM.

The arguments that your links present are not generally applicable (not all heterosexual couples desire or can have children) or clearly false (homosexual unions are inherently unstable) or reflect homophobic bias.
A lot has changed. Many homosexuals are now not ok with lgbt. Many Americans and Brits are now ok with child abuse.
But the truth of God remains.

You are on the wrong side of history, cos history is His story
 
Back
Top