SSM bill passes the Senate 61-36

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.
Firstly, I am not Vibise. Secondly, there is no equivalence between saying to someone, "sadly, you cannot marry a close relative " and "sadly you cannot marry any person you can ever become attracted to.". We may be a largely monogamous species, but we are all capable of falling in love, fairly easily, to another person if the first choice is for some reason unavailable. I reject completely the comparison you are trying to draw. Being unable to marry the person you want because they are married already, or your sister, or they moved to Australia, is all very sad but is nothing like being unable to marry anyone at all because absolutely every person you want to marry, and would want to marry you, is forbidden.
 
Firstly, I am not Vibise.

No you're not, but that's who I was having the conversation with.

Secondly, there is no equivalence between saying to someone, "sadly, you cannot marry a close relative " and "sadly you cannot marry any person you can ever become attracted to.". We may be a largely monogamous species, but we are all capable of falling in love, fairly easily, to another person if the first choice is for some reason unavailable. I reject completely the comparison you are trying to draw. Being unable to marry the person you want because they are married already, or your sister, or they moved to Australia, is all very sad but is nothing like being unable to marry anyone at all because absolutely every person you want to marry, and would want to marry you, is forbidden.

To the person who loves person X and considers person X to be the love of their life, to be denied the right to marry person X feels just as restrictive, and they feel like their right to marry the person they love is being denied. To tell them, hey don't worry, you'll find someone else, is pretty insulting and hurtful to them.
 
That's really that hard for you to grasp? Go to every graveyard and find family plots. Guess what they established. My mother traced my ancestry back to our first arrivals on New England soil in 1635. Guess why I'm alive: The opposite of ancestry is posterity. There was not a single married couple that failed to produce and had they failed, you'd miss the appropriately simple wisdom I'm sharing here, because it would have been as though my very thoughts had been aborted by ancestral reticence.

Is this too hard to understand: I, like you, are the product of an ancestry that did not fail to reproduce. Reproduction is essential to decent conversations on CARM.
Love reproduces love...just as dysfunction reproduces dysfunction, only better and more constructively. It's great to hold hands and kiss and hug...etc...even for decades. It will never match holding children and then grandchildren. When the crowd was snarling for their "rights" because they share the same "rights and responsibilities any married couple has..." they were dreaming. Raise eight children. Then tell me about how responsibilities compare. It made me laugh out loud in the NH statehouse. And it was my friend the Episcopal Bishop of the state who made the statement. We had a memorable conversation after.

You're denying the obvious purpose made so clear in the preamble. There is no workaround. Only your denial.
Would you be against marriage between a man and a woman when one of them is infertile? If not, why not, given that there is no possibility of posterity?
 
No you're not, but that's who I was having the conversation with.



To the person who loves person X and considers person X to be the love of their life, to be denied the right to marry person X feels just as restrictive, and they feel like their right to marry the person they love is being denied. To tell them, hey don't worry, you'll find someone else, is pretty insulting and hurtful to them.
Nevertheless, it is true. What percentage of marriages end in divorce? What percentage are second or third marriages? Your argument doesn't hold water. Knowing that certain people are unavailable is rather different than knowing that absolutely every person is unavailable.
 
Nevertheless, it is true.

Well it might be true in some cases. Lots of people fall in love with one person and even if that doesn't work out, nobody else ever again. If you deny them the one person they might love and want to marry, well, that's pretty cruel, isn't it?

What percentage of marriages end in divorce? What percentage are second or third marriages? Your argument doesn't hold water. Knowing that certain people are unavailable is rather different than knowing that absolutely every person is unavailable.

As I said, lots of people only fall in love once. Your argument doesn't work for them. You are just denying them the right to marry the person they love.

Again, saying, "Hey don't sweat it....there's other fish in the sea" is kind of cruel when you're denying that person the right to marry the consenting adult they love who wants to marry them back.
 
Well it might be true in some cases. Lots of people fall in love with one person and even if that doesn't work out, nobody else ever again. If you deny them the one person they might love and want to marry, well, that's pretty cruel, isn't it?



As I said, lots of people only fall in love once. Your argument doesn't work for them. You are just denying them the right to marry the person they love.

Again, saying, "Hey don't sweat it....there's other fish in the sea" is kind of cruel when you're denying that person the right to marry the consenting adult they love who wants to marry them back.
Frankly, I doubt that this happens very much, outside romantic novels. As an argument for denying happiness to millions of homosexuals, it is ludicrous.
 
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.
slavery was also an accepted policy at one time.
 
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.
What would be acceptable data?
 
Frankly, I doubt that this happens very much, outside romantic novels. As an argument for denying happiness to millions of homosexuals, it is ludicrous.

It's not an argument for denying SSM. It's simply pointing out that people who advocate for SSM on the basis of "we should be able to marry the person we love" but then deny incestuous marriage even though they're denying people the right to marry the person they love, are being hypocrites.

Which is true. Even as you try to rationalize/justify it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BMS
Firstly, I am not Vibise. Secondly, there is no equivalence between saying to someone, "sadly, you cannot marry a close relative " and "sadly you cannot marry any person you can ever become attracted to.". We may be a largely monogamous species, but we are all capable of falling in love, fairly easily, to another person if the first choice is for some reason unavailable.
I follow you and don't disagree too much.

The US had conceded civil unions, allowing most if not all benefits of "marriage." That's the way "rights" work in the US.

It wasn't enough because, well, vendetta's and paybacks.

So they demanded marriage and I don't feel sorry for them in the grief they are and will get for it. Not even a little.
I reject completely the comparison you are trying to draw. Being unable to marry the person you want because they are married already, or your sister, or they moved to Australia, is all very sad but is nothing like being unable to marry anyone at all because absolutely every person you want to marry, and would want to marry you, is forbidden.
The obsession with "marriage" is telling.

Exactly everything it tells me I'm not sure, but some things seem clear.

It's not about rights, it's about societal acceptance.

The US is strong on rights, within reason.

Over here we balance rights of all parties.

But acceptance is not a right.
 
I follow you and don't disagree too much.

The US had conceded civil unions, allowing most if not all benefits of "marriage." That's the way "rights" work in the US.

It wasn't enough because, well, vendetta's and paybacks.

So they demanded marriage and I don't feel sorry for them in the grief they are and will get for it. Not even a little.

The obsession with "marriage" is telling.

Exactly everything it tells me I'm not sure, but some things seem clear.

It's not about rights, it's about societal acceptance.

The US is strong on rights, within reason.

But acceptance is not a right.

That's exactly it. It's about *acceptance*, and for years in this forum, the arguments for SSM were exactly along those lines. Civil Unions didn't give gays and lesbians full "acceptance" into society, even though it granted them the same rights as marriage.
 
You hope the government does more that isn't their business?
The government is alr3ady inextricably involved in marriage on numerous levels. There's no way to together them out at this point. So the best we can do is equality. I'd also note I'd include polygamous marriage in that.
 
It's not an argument for denying SSM. It's simply pointing out that people who advocate for SSM on the basis of "we should be able to marry the person we love" but then deny incestuous marriage even though they're denying people the right to marry the person they love, are being hypocrites.

Which is true. Even as you try to rationalize/justify it.
It isn't "we should be able to marry the person we love".

It's "we should be able to marry a person we love"

Your refusal to see the difference is disengenuous.
 
I follow you and don't disagree too much.

The US had conceded civil unions, allowing most if not all benefits of "marriage." That's the way "rights" work in the US.

It wasn't enough because, well, vendetta's and paybacks.

So they demanded marriage and I don't feel sorry for them in the grief they are and will get for it. Not even a little.

The obsession with "marriage" is telling.

Exactly everything it tells me I'm not sure, but some things seem clear.

It's not about rights, it's about societal acceptance.

The US is strong on rights, within reason.

Over here we balance rights of all parties.

But acceptance is not a right.
The "obsession" is with equality. That sexuality is not a reason to be treated as second class. Equality under the law is a reasonable demand.
 
That's exactly it. It's about *acceptance*, and for years in this forum, the arguments for SSM were exactly along those lines. Civil Unions didn't give gays and lesbians full "acceptance" into society, even though it granted them the same rights as marriage.
And what is wrong with asking for acceptance? It's not the same as agreement. Why should a substantial minority be dismissed as unacceptable by the law?
 
It isn't "we should be able to marry the person we love".

It's "we should be able to marry a person we love"

Your refusal to see the difference is disengenuous.
Yeah that is the problem with your position as pointed out.
It's simply pointing out that people who advocate for SSM on the basis of "we should be able to marry the person we love" but then deny incestuous marriage even though they're denying people the right to marry the person they love, are being hypocrites.

So when you say 'we should..." you mean you and some lgbt ideologues, not others
 
Back
Top