SSM bill passes the Senate 61-36

Besides, my original question remains: if gays are not going to reproduce whether or not they are married, how is "posterity" an argument against them being allowed to marry?

I'm definitely not involved in the "posterity" discussion here, but I will simply say that if we are arguing that children are absolutely not a consideration with respect to marriage, that we keep that consistent, because it's always raised (generally by the same people who argue that children are not a consideration in the marriage question) with the issue of relational marriage (incestuous marriage).
 
Religions abound that will perform ceremonies. Have your ceremonies. Don't expect every baker on earth to bake your cakes, and don't expect the same sanctions families have. Families provide the children, the tools we need to fix everything we're breaking.


I agree to a degree. There are certain positions that I would never consider hiring a Christian for.

Glad this in anonymous forum. Discriminating against Christians is illegal. Discriminating against gays, not so much.
 
I'm definitely not involved in the "posterity" discussion here, but I will simply say that if we are arguing that children are absolutely not a consideration with respect to marriage, that we keep that consistent, because it's always raised (generally by the same people who argue that children are not a consideration in the marriage question) with the issue of relational marriage (incestuous marriage).
I would have trouble rebutting an argument in favour of relations - of legal age, of course - being allowed to marry, as long as children were not on the horizon.
 
I agree to a degree. There are certain positions that I would never consider hiring a Christian for.
I think anybody should have the right to deny (non-medical) service to anybody, for any reason.

And that the person denied service has every right to shout from the rooftops who denied them, and why.
 
I would have trouble rebutting an argument in favour of relations - of legal age, of course - being allowed to marry, as long as children were not on the horizon.
There are issues around possible coercion or abuse, which makes the topic rather difficult. I think that this is a stronger argument against incest (and also polygamy) than the issues of children.
 
There are issues around possible coercion or abuse, which makes the topic rather difficult. I think that this is a stronger argument against incest (and also polygamy) than the issues of children.

I understand those issues, but they're not true in every case of course, and as long as they're actually consenting adults, and they love each other, and if children are not - and cannot, if we're not considering them in the case of SSM - on the table, there really aren't very good reasons to support SSM and yet deny incestuous marriage.

IF, of course, marriage is supposed to be the union of people (consenting adults) who love each other. ("why shouldn't we be allowed to marry the person we love?")
 
I understand those issues, but they're not true in every case of course, and as long as they're actually consenting adults, and they love each other, and if children are not - and cannot, if we're not considering them in the case of SSM - on the table, there really aren't very good reasons to support SSM and yet deny incestuous marriage.

IF, of course, marriage is supposed to be the union of people (consenting adults) who love each other. ("why shouldn't we be allowed to marry the person we love?")
They're not true in every case, and abusive marriages can be legal under current legislation. It's just my personal view. I'm not proposing to die in a ditch to protect the principle.
 
They're not true in every case, and abusive marriages can be legal under current legislation. It's just my personal view. I'm not proposing to die in a ditch to protect the principle.

Yep, I hear you.

I'm just pointing out that if we say that (1) the definition of marriage is fungible, and (2) children ought not - and cannot - be a consideration when it comes to marriage, then incestuous marriage ought to be just as legal (between consenting people of legal marrying age) between relatives as it is between two men or two women. (or any number of people, for that matter)

Yet you often find that the biggest proponents of SSM - who argue that we should be able to marry the person we love - are some of the strongest opponents of incestuous marriage, denying these folks the same exact rights they advocate for when it comes to SS couples.
 
Yep, I hear you.

I'm just pointing out that if we say that (1) the definition of marriage is fungible, and (2) children ought not - and cannot - be a consideration when it comes to marriage, then incestuous marriage ought to be just as legal (between consenting people of legal marrying age) between relatives as it is between two men or two women. (or any number of people, for that matter)

Yet you often find that the biggest proponents of SSM - who argue that we should be able to marry the person we love - are some of the strongest opponents of incestuous marriage, denying these folks the same exact rights they advocate for when it comes to SS couples.
Denying which folks? It has taken decades of lobbying by huge numbers of people, most of them not gay by the way, to gain recognition for same sex marriage. I wouldn't lobby for incestuous marriage to be legal, though I wouldn't actively oppose it. I see noone else lobbying for it either. It's a completely separate issue.
 
Denying which folks? It has taken decades of lobbying by huge numbers of people, most of them not gay by the way, to gain recognition for same sex marriage. I wouldn't lobby for incestuous marriage to be legal, though I wouldn't actively oppose it. I see noone else lobbying for it either. It's a completely separate issue.

Vibise made this point: "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." and "So you support the ability of your gay relatives to marry the persons they love?"

Ok, lots of people think that incest is morally wrong (a "sin", if you will). So vibise's principle is that if we are denying some people the "rights and benefits the rest of us have", we are not loving them or supporting them and are, in fact, aggrieving them. Her example of this is the ability of gays and lesbians to "marry the person they love".

So I'm just taking her guiding moral principle and applying it consistently. And lo and behold, what we find is that it's not really a guiding principle at all. She is just as likely to deny certain people this right based on her own moral feelings about (in this case, incestuous relationships) as some here are to deny same sex couples based on THEIR moral feelings.

But somehow, vibise and others are justified in THEIR denial but anti-SSM folks are not justified in THEIR denial?

In other words, vibise - and others here - are hypocrites.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BMS
Most Christians I know in real life don’t hate gays.

The attitudes of Christians on this forum represent the fringe
I don't know any, though I'm sure they exist, just like there are atheists who hate gays.
 
I don't know any, though I'm sure they exist, just like there are atheists who hate gays.
In fact lgbt generally hates gays since the trans ideology took over. The lgbt tends to blame gays and lesbians as well as Christians now
 
In fact lgbt generally hates gays since the trans ideology took over. The lgbt tends to blame gays and lesbians as well as Christians now
I have heard of the extreme hate from L's to T's for sure.

Since backup and the gang thinks it's just unmitigated hate for no cause, looks like Lesbians need to go under the bus.

It could be that Lesbians don't agree that men are women and supplant them in the Victim pecking order.

Atheists are known to be male and misogynistic, but never mind that.
 
I don't know any, though I'm sure they exist, just like there are atheists who hate gays.
I know homophobic atheists.

Most American Catholic and Mainline Protestants support same sex marriage

It’s really mostly Evangelicals that oppose it. Basically the same brake down as the pro-torture demographics. Evangelicals are just nasty and morally bankrupt, kind of like Wahhabi Muslims.
 
So you do have limits that you would impose. So if enough people would vote to ban gay marriage ....democracy in action.
The problem for you is that SSM is not accepted by a majority of Americans.
The vote in the Senate reflects that shift in that 12 Republicans voted with the Dems to approve SSM.
 
If they proved it, you would not believe it.

As you demonstrated.
One of the hard things about being a scientist is that science accepts the data over previously accepted theory.
So if you could come up with data that supports your creationist views, science would be skeptical and delay acceptance, but would eventually come around.
Nobels have been won by people who overturned previously entrenched notions.
 
Back
Top