SSM bill passes the Senate 61-36

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.
Sex with a horse or selling minor females as sex slaves is also compatible with secular nations. As for the latter, business is booming with minor female sex slaves and rapists in brothels all over the US on Joe Biden watch. No 'remain in Mexico' policy under Joe. And that is what happens when moral idiots run things. Fools who do not know right from wrong. Joe and the drug cartels in bed with each other and laughing all the way to the bank as they tread their way to hell. No fear of God.
 
Sex with a horse or selling minor females as sex slaves is also compatible with secular nations. As for the latter, business is booming with minor female sex slaves and rapists in brothels all over the US on Joe Biden watch. No 'remain in Mexico' policy under Joe. And that is what happens when moral idiots run things. Fools who do not know right from wrong. Joe and the drug cartels in bed with each other and laughing all the way to the bank as they tread their way to hell. No fear of God.
You have obviously lost the argument and are throwing pasta at the wall to see what sticks. Sex with horses, minor female sex slaves, brothels. All attributed to Biden with not a scintilla of evidence.
Your desperation is showing.
 
You have obviously lost the argument and are throwing pasta at the wall to see what sticks. Sex with horses, minor female sex slaves, brothels. All attributed to Biden with not a scintilla of evidence.
Your desperation is showing.
Actually the sex with horses was within the context of secular nation. But yeah the brothels and sex slaves is Biden. It is on Joe Biden and all those who supported him.
 
Actually the sex with horses was within the context of secular nation. But yeah the brothels and sex slaves is Biden. It is on Joe Biden and all those who supported him.
Man, your accusations are so weird and completely unfounded, that it is impossible to think that there are actual information sources that make these claims.

If you have a legitimate argument against SSM, you have yet to make it. Sex with horses does not count.
 
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.
It's all pre-election political posturing meant to divide the emotional positions. Getting ready for the fight. Even if it passed all the way up, the states would sue because it is not a right constitutionally guaranteed. It would go to the Supreme Court and be struck down for the reason Roe v. Wade was.
 
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.
The question is why does the gov't get involved in its regulation and promotion, not why marriage happens, but how it happens in order to promote it for the state's interest.
 
It's all pre-election political posturing meant to divide the emotional positions. Getting ready for the fight. Even if it passed all the way up, the states would sue because it is not a right constitutionally guaranteed. It would go to the Supreme Court and be struck down for the reason Roe v. Wade was.
I expect you are right. Clarence Thomas has already said in his Dobbs decision that SSM rests on the same argument that supported RvW. The RW hates SSM and now they control SCOTUS so can overturn Obergefell.

If that happens the negative response will be strong, especially coupled with Dobbs.
 
The question is why does the gov't get involved in its regulation and promotion, not why marriage happens, but how it happens.
I expect the govt has an interest in promoting stable family units for a stable society, and that would include gay families as well.
 
I expect you are right. Clarence Thomas has already said in his Dobbs decision that SSM rests on the same argument that supported RvW. The RW hates SSM and now they control SCOTUS so can overturn Obergefell.

If that happens the negative response will be strong, especially coupled with Dobbs.
Yes it will be strong on an emotional, visceral level. Just like the stock market... it makes no functional sense when you know the fundamentals. RvW was the correct decision - constitutionally... but too few care about that elegance.
 
So you support the ability of your gay relatives to marry the persons they love?
So using the same logic you support paedophiles who love havinv sex with children

I love people but I dont have to have sex with them to love them.
 
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.
Unless of course, it should
 
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.
Civil partnerships then
 
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.
The concept is very easy. You do understand except when it comes to sexual matters when the person identifies as a sin.
Also it depends on the rights you think others must be forced to have,nit what some others might want.
 
So using the same logic you support paedophiles who love havinv sex with children

I love people but I dont have to have sex with them to love them.
Pedophiles don't enter into mutually agreed upon relations with their targets. We are not talking about one way relationships here. Those are wrong whether it is pedophelia or christians (or anyone for that matter) that are in sinful heterosexual marriages involving subjugation and exploitation of the other.

Of the 3, A pedophile, an abusive christian marriage, or a joyful reciprocated gay relationship, the last goes to heaven. The other 2 can rot.
 
First, learn the word and what it means. (Hint: offspring.)
I know what it means - gay marriage will not reduce the birth rate because gays won't be reproducing whether they are married or not.
Second: Relearn biology. Two sexes not twenty-five.
Where did I claim otherwise?
Don't assume that all of your opponents think alike across the board.
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,
See my first sentence - the US population is in no danger from gay marriage.

Also, I seem to recall "... life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..." being in there somewhere...
 
Last edited:
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.
The laws of a secular society do not address the concept of a "manufacturer" of people.
 
Pedophiles don't enter into mutually agreed upon relations with their targets. We are not talking about one way relationships here. Those are wrong whether it is pedophelia or christians (or anyone for that matter) that are in sinful heterosexual marriages involving subjugation and exploitation of the other.

Of the 3, A pedophile, an abusive christian marriage, or a joyful reciprocated gay relationship, the last goes to heaven. The other 2 can rot.
if you are talking about heaven, which you are, obviously not.
God's purpose says the husband and wife should honour and love and cherish each other. Indeed the image of God is described as a man and a woman coming together in union. As to paedophile and same sex relationships, they are a barrier to the Kingdom.
 
Back
Top