SSM bill passes the Senate 61-36

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?
This is a slippery slope fallacy.

There is no secular reason not to change the current definition of marriage so as to remove the "man + woman" clause.
That is what's under discussion - if somebody wants to marry a cheese sandwich, they can make their own case.
 
This "marriage = kids" nonsense seems to be the only non-goddy argument they can think of.
Except is the subsequent part of the argument, the primary part of the argument is that there are two sexes for intimacy, not one. Seeing as you cant refute that you avoid it
 
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.
No Constitutional provision in Protection regarding a Choice in SSM

It will be put in the trash can by the US Supreme Court if passed

Going further, Justice Thomas stated the court looks forward to addressing the subject of SSM and legalized Sodomy, can't wait!

News Week​

Clarence Thomas Wants SCOTUS to 'Correct the Error' of Legal Gay Marriage​

BY JASON LEMON ON 6/24/22 AT 11:41 AM EDT

Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas argued in a Friday opinion that the nation's top judicial body should overrule a previous decision legalizing LGBTQ marriage nationwide and a former ruling that determined criminalizing sodomy is unconstitutional.

In his Friday concurring opinion with the majority decision to overturn abortion rights, Thomas wrote that the Supreme Court "should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell." The justice contended that those precedents were "demonstrably erroneous."
 
This is a slippery slope fallacy.

No it’s simply a question. I wonder what the answer is.

There is no secular reason not to change the current definition of marriage so as to remove the "man + woman" clause.

Of course there is. In previous threads I’ve linked to articles and even court cases where the court itself has given very clear secular reasons for not allowing SSM. That you don’t agree with them doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

That is what's under discussion - if somebody wants to marry a cheese sandwich, they can make their own case.

I don’t think anyone is talking about cheese sandwiches.
 
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.

It isn't constitutional, vibise.
If you think some things should be rights, we have a process for amending the Constitution.
 
No Constitutional provision in Protection regarding a Choice in SSM

It will be put in the trash can by the US Supreme Court if passed

Going further, Justice Thomas stated the court looks forward to addressing the subject of SSM and legalized Sodomy, can't wait!

News Week​

Clarence Thomas Wants SCOTUS to 'Correct the Error' of Legal Gay Marriage​

BY JASON LEMON ON 6/24/22 AT 11:41 AM EDT

Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas argued in a Friday opinion that the nation's top judicial body should overrule a previous decision legalizing LGBTQ marriage nationwide and a former ruling that determined criminalizing sodomy is unconstitutional.

What?
How is criminalizing sodomy constitutional?

In his Friday concurring opinion with the majority decision to overturn abortion rights, Thomas wrote that the Supreme Court "should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell." The justice contended that those precedents were "demonstrably erroneous."
 
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.
we have long used the term “consenting adults” because we have moral clarity

you people are just disingenuously attacking strawmen, because you are morally bankrupt
 
Oh, please. You think people get married to establish some sort of familial posterity?
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.
Or do they get married because they love one another and want to spend their lives together?
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.

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.
You're denying the obvious purpose made so clear in the preamble. There is no workaround. Only your denial.
 
Last edited:
Is this too hard to understand: I, like you, are the product of an ancestry that did not fail to reproduce.
But plenty of families did "fail", and yet, we're all still here.
It is not essential that all families reproduce.

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?
You're denying the obvious purpose made so clear in the preamble.
Constitutions can be amended - a black person is no longer three-fifths of a white person, for example.
 
This is a slippery slope fallacy.
To call it a "fallacy" after we went from "civil union" to "gay marriage" to child genital mutilation to men on women's teams and in women's locker rooms and bathrooms, to litigation for using the wrong albeit newly invented "pronouns..." is to lie outright. It's not a fallacy.

And because the pedophiles and the bestial crowd are not yet sanctioned, but they're not done fighting, it's not just a "slippery slope," It's a black diamond run with the moguls removed. What behavior would you ever seek to curb? Be careful when you answer, because you will make enemies with your response...if there is any behavior you deem unlawful.
There is no secular reason not to change the current definition of marriage so as to remove the "man + woman" clause.
That is what's under discussion - if somebody wants to marry a cheese sandwich, they can make their own case.
There is a linguistic reason, a historic reason and a pragmatic reason. Friendships, however happily intimate, have zero to offer the survival of a society. You're arguments come from an anomial Lalaland that doesn't exist and has not ever survived a generation and cannot survive.
 
But plenty of families did "fail", and yet, we're all still here.
It is not essential that all families reproduce.
Those that did not fail produced you and your admirable reasoning. You did not come from a failed line...and the potential acknowledges a biological reality that your fantasies exclude.

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 do not care what anyone is "allowed". My argument was with government sanction. There is none, and there is no constitutional right. The state has no vested interest in sanctioning friendships however intimate. The state is interested in the preservation of that society it governs. A friendship ends abruptly with the death of a single partner.

Your behavior will be governed by whatever religion you choose to invent. Look at the failed US Episcopalian church, the Methodist church and the totally apostate Church of England. You can find religions that will welcome any act...however antithetical to Christian values.

Constitutions can be amended - a black person is no longer three-fifths of a white person, for example.
Of course they can be amended. They can address the spirit of the Declaration of Independence as in your example, or they can decide to reject morality and value altogether...and suffer the consequences repeated for every society that chose pride, fullness of bread, abundance of idleness and neglect of the poor over love of God and neighbor. Not one remains today...only their ruins...leaving a carbon footprint when we light them at night that will soon be extinguished.
 
There is a linguistic reason,
Word usage changes literally daily.
a historic reason
Historic laws are changed all the time - slavery is no longer legal in the US, despite the "historic reasons" for it.
and a pragmatic reason. Friendships, however happily intimate, have zero to offer the survival of a society.
I will ask again:

gays will not reproduce whether or not they are married. So, why keep them from marrying?
 
Those that did not fail produced you and your admirable reasoning. You did not come from a failed line...and the potential acknowledges a biological reality that your fantasies exclude.
How will preventing gays from marrying arrest a decrease in US population?
I do not care what anyone is "allowed". My argument was with government sanction. There is none, and there is no constitutional right. The state has no vested interest in sanctioning friendships however intimate.
But why refuse to sanction it?
What harm is there in sanctioning it, even if we grant that there is no benefit?

There is no benefit to society in granting the right to smoke or drink - each of those reduces life expectancy - but the right is granted anyway.
Of course they can be amended. They can address the spirit of the Declaration of Independence as in your example, or they can decide to reject morality and value altogether...and suffer the consequences repeated for every society that chose pride, fullness of bread, abundance of idleness and neglect of the poor over love of God and neighbor.
The US Constitution does not mention any religion's god.

Attempts were made to insert Yahweh and Jesus into it, but they were shouted down.
 
The laws of a secular society do not address the concept of a "manufacturer" of people.
It's about time they did, if they intend to survive, don't you think...since we are so clearly "manufactured." Unless you suggest that a program that is hackable is self-generated, and finds itself and functions in self-generated and reproducible hardware. It's a little late, knowing how AI and modern medicine are seeking to hack the original program and improve on it, to believe the the problem being hacked is a product of random chance.

And if you take a moment to think about the rebellious automobile, you'll understand why it is unsafe to invent laws that go contrary to the original intent.
 
It's about time they did,
:ROFLMAO:
So you want to live in a theocracy.
to believe the the problem being hacked is a product of random chance.
Nobody that understands natural selection believes that it was - or is - random.
And if you take a moment to think about the rebellious automobile, you'll understand why it is unsafe to invent laws that go contrary to the original intent.
Again, I see no intent behind the human species.
 
Back
Top