SSM bill passes the Senate 61-36

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.
Immaterial to my argument. Gays can call their "union" whatever they want. Government has no interest in sanctioning their claim...except to assuage their feelings...and government has no real interest in assuaging feelings.

Where did I claim otherwise?
Oh please. Who cares what you claimed. If you don't defend the whole alphabet argument, you're not the one who will get me fired from my teaching position when. I don't address the ten year old the way the twisted mother insists I address whatever. Do you deny the claim is being made by those with lawyers to make good on their threats?
Don't assume that all of your opponents think alike across the board.
Who cares if my friends and I are being dragged in front of the school board while you sit and say nothing? Is that supposed to make a difference?

My students are being mislead by abusive parents infected by the claims...It's not time for you and me to be bickering over non-essentials.

See my first sentence - the US population is in no danger from gay marriage.
See the preamble to the US constitution. There is no state interest in offering the same benefits to those who are interested in securing the blessings of freedom onto a posterity. The rest do not matter. Who cares what they call their friendship? If legitimacy is only established in government sanction...explain why a friendship should be sanctioned?

Also, I seem to recall "... life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..." being in there somewhere...
Nothing wrong with pursuing happiness...there is no purpose in giving tax breaks to happy people.
 
:ROFLMAO:
So you want to live in a theocracy.
This is so disappointingly cliche.

"Theocracy??" So you want to live in a society that denies the FACT that the creator might have something to say about how HIS creation functions and thrives? Denying the Creator doesn't erase the creator any more than covering the apple on my laptop changes the manufacturer.

I acknowledge the King, because He is. I acknowledge the constitution because it's practical, and the best, most successful and functional form of government in human history. It's as simple as that. I want to live practically and at peace with life, so that I can offer help to folks in need. The homeless I visit weekly include former students of mine.

If I could live cliche-free, I'd put that on the list, but I don't want to cancel you if that's the best you've got so far.
Nobody that understands natural selection believes that it was - or is - random.

Again, I see no intent behind the human species.
There is a lot you do not see...and a lot you must deny, if you are following the advancements in physics and microbiology. The entire universe is demonstrably pixilated and electronically programed.
 
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.
Gay marriages are between people old enough to give consent.
 
"Theocracy??" So you want to live in a society that denies the FACT that the creator might have something to say about how HIS creation functions and thrives?
You can capitalize "fact" all you like.
It's a belief.
Denying the Creator doesn't erase the creator any more than covering the apple on my laptop changes the manufacturer.
And acknowledging a creator doesn't bring one into existence any more than drawing an Apple logo on a laptop makes it an Apple laptop.
I acknowledge the King, because He is.
You believe he is.
But founding documents are not - and should not - be based on unconfirmable beliefs.
I acknowledge the constitution because it's practical, and the best, most successful and functional form of government in human history. It's as simple as that.
The US Constitution specifically omits mentions of Jesus and the god of the Bible, and its First Amendment forbids the creation of laws that favour Christianity, or any other religion, over irreligion.
There is a lot you do not see...and a lot you must deny, if you are following the advancements in physics and microbiology. The entire universe is demonstrably pixilated and electronically programed.
If somebody had used science to prove a god, they would have won a Nobel Prize, wouldn't they?
 
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.
Posterity can be defined in many ways. After all, George Washington never produced any children.
 
How will preventing gays from marrying arrest a decrease in US population?
Again, you miss the argument..."Preventing gays from marrying" has nothing to do with government sanctioned friendships that do not contribute to the perpetuation of society. 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.

But why refuse to sanction it?
What harm is there in sanctioning it, even if we grant that there is no benefit?
What harm is there in government sanctioning fantasy? What purpose is there? "Harm" is a silly, emotional argument. There might be no harm, although history argues otherwise. There is no point, and the constitution is not written for happier friendships. Families provide the future, and raise up and train those who will carry on. There is a practical reason and purpose in allowing tax breaks and sanctions. Justify the same for two friends living together? What do they offer society that society doesn't already enjoy with or without their super tight and lasting relationship?

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.
That's a specious argument, but it goes along with the "pursuit of happiness" thing you brought up. Not constitutional, just inalienable rights listed in our Declaration of Independence. You don't get tax breaks for smoking or drinking. You do for being married.

The US Constitution does not mention any religion's god.
Nope...(although it forbids congress from making ANY law promoting or preventing the free practice, a proviso that is being rapidly compromised.) It does not ignore God's existence, and it does not impose atheism as the state religion in any terms. "Secularism" is not the state religion that it is in France.

Attempts were made to insert Yahweh and Jesus into it, but they were shouted down.
I wasn't there, but there is a lot of shouting in 1776, the musical...Great play. good singing too.
 
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.
I don't think it likely that the kingdom even exists given that even Jesus himself got it wrong. But that's another forum.

While I agree that homosexuality is an anomaly, it is part of reality. If you believe in God, then it is a natural part of God's reality throughout most all "created" species. Sure there are excesses of lust over love, but that is true across both heterosexual and homosexual relations.
 
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 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.
There will always be people fighting to legalize their own behaviors that are not acceptable to the general populace. That does not mean those behaviors will be accepted in the future if SSM remains legal. The current bill before Congress deals only with SSM and interracial marriages. There is no groundswell of demand to legalize beastiality or polygamy or child marriage.
 
Again, you miss the argument..."Preventing gays from marrying" has nothing to do with government sanctioned friendships that do not contribute to the perpetuation of society. 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.


What harm is there in government sanctioning fantasy? What purpose is there? "Harm" is a silly, emotional argument. There might be no harm, although history argues otherwise. There is no point, and the constitution is not written for happier friendships. Families provide the future, and raise up and train those who will carry on. There is a practical reason and purpose in allowing tax breaks and sanctions. Justify the same for two friends living together? What do they offer society that society doesn't already enjoy with or without their super tight and lasting relationship?


That's a specious argument, but it goes along with the "pursuit of happiness" thing you brought up. Not constitutional, just inalienable rights listed in our Declaration of Independence. You don't get tax breaks for smoking or drinking. You do for being married.


Nope...(although it forbids congress from making ANY law promoting or preventing the free practice, a proviso that is being rapidly compromised.) It does not ignore God's existence, and it does not impose atheism as the state religion in any terms. "Secularism" is not the state religion that it is in France.


I wasn't there, but there is a lot of shouting in 1776, the musical...Great play. good singing too.
I have friends who got married a few years ago. They were in their 80s. No chance of them contributing to the "perpetuation of society". Are they living as a "government sanctioned friendship"?

Society benefits from the formation of stable, state-recognized family units.
 
Again, you miss the argument..."Preventing gays from marrying" has nothing to do with government sanctioned friendships that do not contribute to the perpetuation of society.
Doesn't impede it, either.
So, why not do it?
What harm is there in government sanctioning fantasy? What purpose is there? "Harm" is a silly, emotional argument.
No, it's not.
Societies make things illegal for reasons, not legal for reasons - legality is the default, and you make a thing illegal because it causes some form of harm.

If there is no harm, a thing should not be illegal.
Justify the same for two friends living together?
Again, why not?
Maybe straight marriage shouldn't have tax breaks, and nor should having children.

That's very firmly my opinion, anyway - if you can't afford kids 100% off your own back, you shouldn't be having them.
No tax breaks - the rich get poorer, and the poor get richer.
 
I have friends who got married a few years ago. They were in their 80s. No chance of them contributing to the "perpetuation of society".
I have friends who married that detest children, and will never have them... no tax breaks for them, I guess:cry:
 
This is so disappointingly cliche.

"Theocracy??" So you want to live in a society that denies the FACT that the creator might have something to say about how HIS creation functions and thrives? Denying the Creator doesn't erase the creator any more than covering the apple on my laptop changes the manufacturer.

I acknowledge the King, because He is. I acknowledge the constitution because it's practical, and the best, most successful and functional form of government in human history. It's as simple as that. I want to live practically and at peace with life, so that I can offer help to folks in need. The homeless I visit weekly include former students of mine.

If I could live cliche-free, I'd put that on the list, but I don't want to cancel you if that's the best you've got so far.

There is a lot you do not see...and a lot you must deny, if you are following the advancements in physics and microbiology. The entire universe is demonstrably pixilated and electronically programed.
YOU may insist that the creator you believe in is a FACT, but others envision a different sort of god or no god at all.
A secular society must accommodate all these views, and enshrine none of them as part of official policy.
 
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.
This is a very interesting comment. The Kinsey Report, used as an excuse for modern sex education since the fifties was based on the accounts of pedophiles in prison...and supplies the "basis" for the "science" still, today. It argues that the children, even the infants, enjoyed the experience. This conversation has been debated for seventy years in America. Folks arguing in favor of pre-teen genital mutilation disagree with you.

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.
How does it feel being god?
 
YOU may insist that the creator you believe in is a FACT, but others envision a different sort of god or no god at all.
A secular society must accommodate all these views, and enshrine none of them as part of official policy.
You may insist that the chair is not a chair, and refuse to ever sit...

It doesn't change the chair...or the fact. It just makes you look very silly.

It is impossible to "accommodate" all views. As with the Christian bakers, lawyers with an eye to profit and propagandists with an eye for useful crisis will make "accommodating" profitable at another's expense. You can try to ignore all views...that only works until the fascist tyrant seeks to silence those that take issue with his. We saw that with the Dorsey/Zuckerberg/Google whatshisface cabal that y'all so benefitted from that your president alleged is the picture of senility.
 
Gays can call their "union" whatever they want. Government has no interest in sanctioning their claim
It did, historically, and it does now (albeit for different reasons).

Not one single right-wing conservative has EVER complained about federal tax benefits opposed to marriage. If y'all were so constitutionally-minded (which is a larf), you would've been protesting federal involvement with marriage a century ago.

Much more importantly, as long as states insist on being the gatekeepers of hospital visitation rights (et al), the federal government has an interest in making sure those rights aren't being denied unfairly. To wit: if states get to decide that only married couples and immediate relations can go see very sick / injured people in the hospital, then the fed gets to decide what marriage means.

It aint rocket science.
 
I don't think it likely that the kingdom even exists given that even Jesus himself got it wrong. But that's another forum.
He rose from the dead. The tomb was empty...he was seen and is still seen today.

He got it right...but that's another forum.

While I agree that homosexuality is an anomaly, it is part of reality. If you believe in God, then it is a natural part of God's reality throughout most all "created" species. Sure there are excesses of lust over love, but that is true across both heterosexual and homosexual relations.
It's an unnatural part of a corrupted nature. Romans 1 actually explains how it happens to the society that rejects God as God...and are left on their own. Pride takes over. Excess takes over. Thirst for entertainment takes over and the poor and the needy given to our charge are neglected. Our minds are given over to our own lusts unrestrained, and we are self-enslaved, and call that slavery freedom.

It's all there. You ought to read it. 21st century West in a single passage of scripture. Guess what ended and did not happen in fascist Germany, and does not happen in Muslim nations under Sharia or in China. Want to guess why? Societies do not last a single generation after they've been given over.
 
It did, historically, and it does now (albeit for different reasons).

Not one single right-wing conservative has EVER complained about federal tax benefits opposed to marriage. If y'all were so constitutionally-minded (which is a larf), you would've been protesting federal involvement with marriage a century ago.
No clue what you're talking about, Mike. What benefits were opposed to marriage?

Much more importantly, as long as states insist on being the gatekeepers of hospital visitation rights (et al), the federal government has an interest in making sure those rights aren't being denied unfairly. To wit: if states get to decide that only married couples and immediate relations can go see very sick / injured people in the hospital, then the fed gets to decide what marriage means.
I agree with you here. When folks were being denied visitation rights during COVID, we almost all agreed on something for a change. Standing in the way of loved ones visiting each other is counterproductive, even to healing.

It aint rocket science.
None of this is.
 
Back
Top