Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
NY State Senate To Vote On Same-Sex Marriage Today  
User currently offlineRJpieces From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 2786 times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/03/nyregion/03marriage.html

Debate is going on right now here:
http://www.nysenate.gov/blogs/2009/d...ch-senate-debate-marriage-equality

The New York State Senate is set to vote later today on a bill legalizing same-sex marriage. This is quite an accomplishment for New York!! Also, yesterday, the District of Columbia City Council voted 11-2 in favor of same-sex marriage. This bill has to be voted on a second time in two weeks, and will then go to the Mayor, who has said he will sign it.

The way things are looking, New York and Washington, D.C. will have same-sex marriage within two months.

[Edited 2009-12-02 11:09:45]

159 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineGQfluffy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 2786 times:

And if it doesn't pass...people will cry hatred and bigotry.  Yeah sure

User currently offlineRJpieces From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 2776 times:



Quoting GQfluffy (Reply 1):
And if it doesn't pass...people will cry hatred and bigotry. Yeah sure

Considering the ridiculous arguments that opponents are making, I would say this is accurate.


User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 2766 times:



Quoting RJpieces (Reply 2):
Considering the ridiculous arguments that opponents are making, I would say this is accurate.

Sources?


User currently offlineCadet57 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 9085 posts, RR: 31
Reply 4, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2752 times:



Quoting GQfluffy (Reply 1):
And if it doesn't pass...people will cry hatred and bigotry

Do you blame them?

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 3):
Sources?

Just go watch all the idiots who were for Prop 8 in cali. Same BS, same narrow minded, backwards views.



Doors open, right hand side, next stop is Springfield.
User currently offlineMt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6546 posts, RR: 6
Reply 5, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2752 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting GQfluffy (Reply 1):
And if it doesn't pass...people will cry hatred and bigotry. Yeah sure

And if it does pass people will cry about the end civilization as we know it...



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineAirstud From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 2557 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2752 times:

Are we going to do all this again?

We just had the exact same discussion about the vote in Maine.

When are we going to label this topic as "discussed."



Pancakes are delicious.
User currently offlineAKiss20 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 580 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2743 times:



Quoting Airstud (Reply 6):
When are we going to label this topic as "discussed."

Oh probably in 10 years or so when gay marriage will be legal in all 50 states and federally recognized. It is inevitable that this will be so, but the process of getting there will, as always, create much discussion in which nothing ever gets said...



Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26196 posts, RR: 76
Reply 8, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2738 times:



Quoting RJpieces (Thread starter):

The way things are looking, New York and Washington, D.C. will have same-sex marriage within two months.

Yay. I worry about D.C. in the short term though, as Congress can reverse anything the D.C. Council does.

Quoting GQfluffy (Reply 1):
And if it doesn't pass...people will cry hatred and bigotry.

As they should.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2739 times:

Quoting Cadet57 (Reply 4):
Just go watch all the idiots who were for Prop 8 in cali. Same BS, same narrow minded, backwards views.

Ah that is right if your against us your an idiot. Typical.

Quoting Cadet57 (Reply 4):
Do you blame them?

When you discount someones voice simply because it differs from yours your argument is invalid. I am for civil unions myself but would vote for gay marriage because it's not my decision as to someone's life but if it fails at a legal vote you need to respect it. You can't pick and choose.

[Edited 2009-12-02 12:04:34]

User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7276 posts, RR: 52
Reply 10, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2735 times:

What's it looking like? Pass or no pass? Or is it unsure?


Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineCadet57 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 9085 posts, RR: 31
Reply 11, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2729 times:



Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 9):
Ah that is right if your against us your an idiot. Typical.

So denying someone the right to marry based on their sexual orientation isn't idiotic?  crazy 

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 9):
When you discount someones voice simply because it differs from yours your argument is invalid.

I'm not discounting their voice. They have every right to believe what they want. But I also have the same right, including to dislike who they think should be the only people to marry.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 9):
but if it fails at a legal vote you need to respect it.

It should not even have to be voted upon. Why do us straight people hold a monopoly over marriage?

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 9):
You can't pick and choose.

Neither can the religious right who are living in the past who are picking and choosing who can marry.



Doors open, right hand side, next stop is Springfield.
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26196 posts, RR: 76
Reply 12, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2724 times:



Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 9):
but if it fails at a legal vote you need to respect it.

I guess "equal protection of the laws" means nothing to you and others who believe in oppressing minorities with the tyranny of the majority.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2713 times:

Quoting Cadet57 (Reply 11):
So denying someone the right to marry based on their sexual orientation isn't idiotic?

Once again marriage isn't a right. It's a privilege governed under state law and those laws are voted on.

Quoting Cadet57 (Reply 11):
I'm not discounting their voice. They have every right to believe what they want. But I also have the same right, including to dislike who they think should be the only people to marry

You sure are. Read what you posted.

Quoting Cadet57 (Reply 11):
It should not even have to be voted upon. Why do us straight people hold a monopoly over marriage?

If it's governed under state law you bet your bippy it's going to voted on. Remember it's not a right.

Quoting Cadet57 (Reply 11):
Neither can the religious right who are living in the past who are picking and choosing who can marry.

The religious right has nothing to do with this. They are just a group that opposes it. That is a MSNBC sound byte.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 12):
I guess "equal protection of the laws" means nothing to you and others who believe in oppressing minorities with the tyranny of the majority

That equal protection comes by a vote. Again phrases like "tryanny" are talking points and have no use here.

Can't confirm but I heard it failed 24-38

[Edited 2009-12-02 12:27:29]

User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7276 posts, RR: 52
Reply 14, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2705 times:



Quoting AKiss20 (Reply 7):
Oh probably in 10 years or so when gay marriage will be legal in all 50 states and federally recognized. It is inevitable that this will be so, but the process of getting there will, as always, create much discussion in which nothing ever gets said...

Yeah I don't think anyone can argue against this, even the most hardcore anti-gay marriage would probably admit that, I think...

Just because I like devil's advocate, I'll tell it like this: it's not discriminating, because a straight man doesn't have the right to marry another man, just the same as a gay man doesn't have the right to marry a guy. My point is, it IS a legal battle, what supporters must realize is they need to make laws LEGALIZING it, not arguing that the existing laws DO support it. But that's my 2 cents on how they should go about doing it...



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineRJpieces From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2705 times:



Quoting Airstud (Reply 6):
Are we going to do all this again?



Quoting Airstud (Reply 6):
When are we going to label this topic as "discussed."

Once all 50 states stop discriminating against same-sex couples!

Quoting N1120A (Reply 8):
I worry about D.C. in the short term though, as Congress can reverse anything the D.C. Council does.

Yes, but this is unlikely for several reasons. Congress has 30 legislative days to reverse the DC City Council. Here, it would involve both houses of Congress passing a disapproval bill, and President Obama signing it. All three very unlikely to happen, especially when you consider the racial politics involved with the concept of the first African-American President trying to interfere with DC--a city with a large African-American population--politics.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 9):
Ah that is right if your against us your an idiot. Typical.

I agree with you that this argument is silly most of the time (on trivial issues, other political issues, etc). But on this issue like no other I have come to personally conclude that there really aren't legitimate reasons to be against same-sex marriage other than bigotry against gays and lesbians.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 9):
. I am for civil unions myself but would vote for gay marriage because it's not my decision as to someone's life but if it fails at a legal vote you need to respect it.

I appreciate your being candid, and I hope you look at it from the perspective of gays and lesbians who want to get married. Why should other citizens be able to vote on whether they have access to a fundamental right?

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 10):
Pass or no pass?

Unfortunately it did not pass. DC is looking good though; we'll know for sure in two weeks.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 13):
Once again marriage isn't a right.

With all due respect, the Supreme Court disagrees. They have repeatedly stated that marriage is a fundamental human right under our Constitution. Thus, for two examples, states are barred from preventing a person from marrying a person of a different race, and states are barred from not allowing prisoners to marry.


User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2697 times:



Quoting RJpieces (Reply 15):
I appreciate your being candid, and I hope you look at it from the perspective of gays and lesbians who want to get married. Why should other citizens be able to vote on whether they have access to a fundamental right?

No problem, I don't believe what happens in the bedroom is my business but the laws governing marriage have to be voted on and that vote respected either way. That's now how the system works.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 14):
Yeah I don't think anyone can argue against this, even the most hardcore anti-gay marriage would probably admit that, I think...

It's a bit of a stretch, I doubt TX and most of the south are going to legalize it anytime soon.


User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6485 posts, RR: 24
Reply 17, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2694 times:



Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 16):
No problem, I don't believe what happens in the bedroom is my business but the laws governing marriage have to be voted on and that vote respected either way. That's now how the system works.

So do you believe that if voters decide to ban interracial marriage that should be allowed?


User currently offlineThegreatRDU From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2310 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2687 times:

Apparently the state of new Jersey put it off...many thought this would be a breeze...


Our Returning Champion
User currently offlineMt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6546 posts, RR: 6
Reply 19, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2678 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 16):
No problem, I don't believe what happens in the bedroom is my business but the laws governing marriage have to be voted on and that vote respected either way. That's now how the system works.

So if it passes - you will be OK with it?



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineAKiss20 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 580 posts, RR: 5
Reply 20, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2678 times:



Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 14):

Just because I like devil's advocate, I'll tell it like this: it's not discriminating, because a straight man doesn't have the right to marry another man, just the same as a gay man doesn't have the right to marry a guy. My point is, it IS a legal battle, what supporters must realize is they need to make laws LEGALIZING it, not arguing that the existing laws DO support it. But that's my 2 cents on how they should go about doing it...

Thing is that there are very few examples in history of legislatures actually giving new rights to minorities under attack, most have been conferred by courts. You can argue as to why this is, I tend to believe mostly because courts tend to be a lot less clouded by the need to be elected, thus they are much less prone to sensationalism. I anticipate that at some point there will be a SCOTUS case regarding gay marriage that will result in the overturning of DOMA and the invalidation of gay marriage bans by states (which SCOTUS can obviously do). I mean Lawrence V. Texas, Brown V. Board, and the equal protection clause set up a good line of precedents for such a decision. A well crafted SCOTUS case could do it all in one swoop, and I anticipate that at some point that is exactly what will happen. This, by the way, does not argue that current laws support gay marriage, but rather that they cannot not support gay marriage.



Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are
User currently offlineRJpieces From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2670 times:



Quoting AKiss20 (Reply 20):
A well crafted SCOTUS case could do it all in one swoop, and I anticipate that at some point that is exactly what will happen.

Maybe once there is more momentum. If 25-35 states had gay marriage, I could see SCOTUS getting involved to force the rest to comply. But I doubt they will strike down 40+ state laws now....

Not to mention that DOMA will hopefully be repealed legislatively soone nouhg....


User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2661 times:



Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 17):
So do you believe that if voters decide to ban interracial marriage that should be allowed?

Nice loaded question but I would be against it but powerless to stop it. Stay on topic please.

Quoting Mt99 (Reply 19):
So if it passes - you will be OK with it?

I think I have told you in other threads I am pro gay rights so yes. Personally I prefer gays to have civil unions because I feel marriage should be a man and a woman but when it comes to it passing. I would vote for it.


User currently offlineCadet57 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 9085 posts, RR: 31
Reply 23, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2644 times:



Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 22):
Personally I prefer gays to have civil unions because I feel marriage should be a man and a woman

Why can straight couples get married but gay's only get civil unions?



Doors open, right hand side, next stop is Springfield.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 18703 posts, RR: 58
Reply 24, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2625 times:



Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 9):

When you discount someones voice simply because it differs from yours your argument is invalid.

Unless their arguments are just...invalid.

We've gone over this over and over and over. The same arguments from the anti-crowd get logically reubtted. They don't care and don't listen. They aren't interested in logic and facts, but in maintaining their point of view, no matter what.

There is no valid legal reason why gay couples should be denied marriage. NOT A SINGLE ONE. Zero. Zip. Nada. At least, I haven't been presented one yet in the decades that this so-called "debate" has gone on.


25 OA412 : Neither have I. Not once have I ever been given a reason that held up to any sort of logical test.
26 Pilotsmoe : Until the "Activist Judges" decide otherwise
27 DocLightning : The senate knocked it down. But it is a matter of time. Just a matter of time.
28 N1120A : Unless some of these state supreme courts shock me by making the right call, this is going to have to play out with the US Supreme Court. If they app
29 RJpieces : O'Connor's concurrence specifically stated that it did not refer to recognition of same-sex couples. Kennedy's majority opinion is more spot on.
30 N1120A : Actually, neither truly addressed same-sex marriage. The reason I prefer O'Connor's opinion is because she applied equal protection directly. Kennedy
31 Mham001 : Why can't single people have all the same rights and benefits that gay want? CORRECTION: You haven't been presented with a reason that you AGREE with
32 N1120A : This makes zero sense.
33 NIKV69 : I never said they couldn't. I just feel (I guess it's my catholic background) that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Mostly because you d
34 Aaron747 : Nice attempt at equivocation. Unless you can provide a logical argument against gay marriage that a) proves it is harmful to society or b) nullifies
35 N1120A : Fine. No one is forcing the Catholic church to perform same-sex marriages. In fact, I would oppose such a mandate just as vigorously. Nor should he.
36 AKiss20 : Or because thusfar all arguments against gay marriage have either been religious, which by definition is not legal, rational, nor logical, or "societ
37 Mt99 : how does your Carholic backround feel about hiding child molestation?
38 DocLightning : Name one benefits that gays have that single people don't. Name ONE. I will buy you a very expensive bottle of wine if you can. Hardly. I do respect
39 Ual777 : Wow real classy. Someone doesn't agree with you and you start taunting their religious beliefs.
40 Mt99 : Spare me dude. look at the thread right under this one : "Gays are going to Hell - Vatican " I mean come on. how classy is that ?
41 Post contains links Ual777 : Did you even read the article? http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...ALeqM5h5kwXHE_zqvKJp92adJjWeXxZmyg "VATICAN CITY — Homosexuals and transsexua
42 Aaron747 : Posted in haste, now corrected. Exactly. When that changes, there will be something reasonable to listen to and argue with. Irrelevant - that has lit
43 Airstud : THAT was well out of order. I may not like NIKV69 but he was only citing millenia-old Catholic ethos. That's wholly unrelated to current misconduct b
44 Mt99 : you mean read the "insult to god part"? Contrary to want you may think we just love being told over and over than we are the reason that the world is
45 Mir : I respect their beliefs about the morality of homosexuality. I can't respect their desire to legally impose those beliefs on the homosexual community
46 Csavel : Yeah well another dark day for New York State. I note with regret that Hiram Monserrante, convicted girlfriend slasher voted against marriage equality
47 Mt99 : ohh you mean unlike the very nice and lovig words from the Vatican ?
48 NIKV69 : Just because someone doesn't agree with gay marriage doesn't make them a bigot. Unless of course you want to call your president one. Until that poin
49 N1120A : I agree. Actually, millenia-old Catholic ethos also says the church should be the only ones to punish priests. Did they vote the bill down?
50 OA412 : The opposition has consistently told me that if I am granted the right to marry that it will be immoral, weaken straight marriage, that it will bring
51 N1120A : I'm flattered. I think I am just comfortable enough with my own sexuality to not care.
52 Mir : Yeah, they did, and it wasn't that close. -Mir
53 DeltaMD90 : What is your deal dude? I once met a dumb guy from Chicago. Does that mean all guys from Chicago are dumb? That would make you dumb! (Your profile sa
54 Mt99 : Where have I said that all Catholics are child molestors? however the Vatican says that ALL gays are evil and going to hell are an insult to God. fai
55 N1120A : Sickening
56 LTBEWR : The NY State Senate is 50% +1 Republican. I assume that in block they voted against same-gender marriage recognition. Thus the balance of no votes cam
57 DocLightning : I asked you to give me a valid reason. You haven't yet. In fact, you are correct. You will be able to give me a valid reason when pigs fly because th
58 Charles79 : As sad as this development is, this is a very good sign. 24 elected officials were able to overcome their personal fears and beliefs. They decided tha
59 ATCtower : Well yeah... My question to ruffle some right wing whack job skirts is this... If you are so opposed to same sex marriage, why? Yeah, sure it isnt th
60 DocLightning : My theory: because they're angry. Here's someone to hate. Someone to use as a scapegoat. Can't use Jews anymore. Can't use Blacks anymore. But gays a
61 N1120A : Likely because "God" doesn't give them everything they want.
62 NIKV69 : No but a vote is, and you lost. Great theory, I guess Obama is angry? Why does he oppose it?
63 N1120A : Actually, not really.
64 Aaron747 : Question: for anyone who claims to be conservative, why do you support anything, by vote or otherwise, that tramples libertarian values?? It just doe
65 GQfluffy : Well...after skimming half the comments above...damn. Really? My one sentence got a few responses...nothing out of the ordinary. That said, I'm no rig
66 FlyDeltaJets87 : And this thread continues down the same path that the Maine thread did a few weeks ago. Huge surprise. I'll state it again, less someone try to assume
67 2H4 : I wonder how many black people were told exactly that before American legislators finally saw the light and extended equal rights to people of all co
68 NIKV69 : Funny seeing marriage is not a right.
69 Aaron747 : So you plan on skirting the libertarian question yet again? Thanks for playing. You're wrong regarding rights and past SCOTUS rulings to that effect
70 Cadet57 : Apparently you missed the fact the Supreme Court stated marriage IS a basic human right under the Constitution. But hey, what's a few details...
71 Post contains links AKiss20 : And I quote directly from the opinion delivered by Justice Warren in the 9-0 Loving V. Virginia case: "The freedom to marry has long been recognized
72 Post contains images 2H4 :        Additionally, every shred of logic that is used to explicitly extend the freedom of choice to marry based on skin color applies directly
73 DeltaMD90 : Did he hide molestation? No, I'm sure he has never even met a child molesting priest. You say just because he's Catholic then he's guilty of hiding m
74 Mt99 : Yes you did. I am not accusing him to have hidden molestation? Where do you get all of this from? huh? really? Before you claimed that i said that al
75 RJpieces : There is no inconsistency. I, like everyone else, have my religious views, but I do not think or expect in anyway for them to be forced upon the enti
76 Mir : A vote is not the be-all and end-all that some make it out to be. The Constitution has protections in it to ensure that there is no tyranny of the ma
77 Aaron747 : Your opinion is consistent with that of some, but not all, Orthodox Jews. Your personal opinions regarding same sex marriage are highly inconsistent
78 Ual777 : He did not say gays are evil. He said that they are sinners which is different. The Catholic faith (as with most if not all major religions) believe
79 ATCtower : Well I am glad that someone who loves someone will not share the same heaven I will if I get there.... Seriously, if you are not God, what the f are y
80 Csavel : Well, it will actually solve the problem of what happens to gay people when their partners get sick or die, because straight people as widows or wido
81 JakeOrion : Generally I don't like to participate in these threads, but I feel I have to address the issue as quoted above. Of what you said is true, now does it
82 Aaron747 : Yes, so long as government is handing out "marriage" licenses. It's pure semantics - if made legal for gay people, it will in no way change the statu
83 JakeOrion : Wait, yes as in they'll still voice their opinion or yes as in they'll be fine to leave it called civil unions? Because sometimes, life isn't fair. N
84 Aaron747 : The former. Perhaps on an issue such as the power of homeowners' associations or the type of trees to be planted in a neighborhood park, that's not m
85 Csavel : Speaking for me personally, I couldn't care if they called it a lime green taffeta prom dress. In the US you *have* to have a civil marriage, I mean
86 Csavel : But that isn't absolute. The majority could still be against interracial marriage, or the majority can be for banning Islam, but since the majority i
87 JakeOrion : Why? Essentially civil unions and marriage would be the same, just labeled differently. I truly believe why many are against same sex marriages is be
88 Mt99 : But like you say its just a word! Answer this: If for all practical purposes "civil unions" are the same as "marriages" what makes a civil union less
89 Aaron747 : Why different words? To allay the fears and perceptions of other citizens, right? Make government bigger with different forms and printed licenses in
90 JakeOrion : Something tells me there is a story behind this quote. So if the majority doesn't even have these rights, why should the minority have them as well?
91 Mt99 : So a childless marriage should be called what?
92 Mir : Because the US has already decided that separate is not equal. -Mir
93 JakeOrion : For now, yes. But you are failing to see the big picture. Humans change over time, and if you have established "civil unions" for same sex couples, i
94 Post contains links Aaron747 : What exactly are you talking about? There are more than 1,000 rights federally delineated to married heterosexuals. Not so to a categorical extent an
95 JakeOrion : It is still defined as a marriage, since it involves a man and woman that can conceive children. If they are unable to, well, your call, but in my op
96 Mt99 : And all of this "marriage" is scared and shouldn't be messed with. Just like Britney Spears marriage and all of Elizabeth Taylor marriages too.
97 Mt99 : An you are entitled to have it. But explain to us why? Based on what you described here: And the fact that the religious folk want laws to "protect"
98 JakeOrion : Forget it, I went off tangent with that remark. I didn't say marriage has been desecrated to something more poignant in recent times. These would fal
99 JakeOrion : To their defense, they still had children while they were married, so... Which they should have children, otherwise, why get married in the first pla
100 Mt99 : What if they are not physically able? Yes. And their children will be perfectly normal and an asset to society. Another question.should a second "mar
101 JakeOrion : Then they would fall under civil union, which would essentially be a marriage anyway. One would hope, but highly unlikely. I don't see why not? While
102 Post contains images Aaron747 : Maybe you missed the part about 1/4 to 1/3 of them being biological children? You stated that the societal concern regarding marriage centers on crea
103 Scorpio : LOL! So what do you suggest? Do we force people to take a fertility test to see if they can get married or not?
104 JakeOrion : From a hetero relationship maybe? While I'm happy your aunt had a daughter, it still required a man to conceive her daughter. How am I denying anyone
105 Mt99 : I can ask you the exact same thing. If they are so equal, why not call them both marriage? So all childless marriages should be banned. Let put that
106 2H4 : To whom? 2H4
107 JakeOrion : Look, I tried to be reasonable, but if nobody wants to compromise, what is even the point of this discussion? My only caveat was the word Marriage fo
108 2H4 : Me too. I asked a simple question. If marriage means "the ability to conceive" to the Supreme Court, that's quite different than if it has that meani
109 Mt99 : So you don't have an answer. Is that it?
110 Aaron747 : Obviously. But he's not raising her - she and her partner are - and her partner is the other legal parent, not him. They are a family unit going on f
111 FlyDeltaJets87 : Then why did Jesus die for our sins? And why did God make homosexuals naturally gay if being gay is a sin (thus a choice)?
112 N1120A : Please. "Bastard" children have full rights of inheritance. That has nothing to do with marriage, especially in the 21st Century. You still haven't a
113 Slider : Owned. Funny how Obama remains eerily quiet, no? Wait, but that was used to ban school prayer. So what's your point?
114 Mir : So you support revoking the marriages of all heterosexual couples who choose not to have children? That's the line that supporters of separate but eq
115 Aaron747 : Not even remotely germaine to the topic. There is no reason people can't pray in groups or individually before or after proceedings without use of a
116 FlyDeltaJets87 : Even funny is how the Obama supporters on here remain quiet even after NIKV raised the point. I disagree with NIKV's beliefs on this issue. But one t
117 Scorpio : I'll take a shot at that one: I don't know exactly what Obama's stance is on the issue: is he simply personally opposed to gay marriage, or is he in
118 Slider : My logic was that there are plenty of laws and protections because something “offends” someone else. Merely being offended doesn’t constitute a
119 N1120A : More like N1120A didn't feel like leafing through posts, so he hasn't seen that. So here is N1120A's response: I believe Obama is not actually person
120 Csavel : If they are completely equal then why not just call it marriage? I mean, if you're hung up on the word, but (so you say) will give equal rights under
121 DocLightning : First of all, I do not believe for one minute that Obama actually opposes gay marriage. But his statement was bigoted. I'll say it here and I'll say
122 Post contains links Mt99 : Have you read the story of David and Jonathan? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_and_Jonathan "So "Jonathan pledged himself afresh to David because
123 NIKV69 : That is what I have been saying! Why not? Once again we see picking and choosing. Obama opposes gay marriage pal. For probably the same reason I do b
124 DocLightning : Because I believe he told a political lie. And I disrespect him for it. I'd respect him more for it if I believed that he actually did oppose gay mar
125 OA412 : Agreed on both points. Obama (or any other politician for that matter) knows that issues like gay marriage can affect outcomes in swing states so he
126 DeltaMD90 : Well there have been 9 million comments since I last got on, so it will be pointless to bring up my old arguments. But I did read a very good argument
127 NIKV69 : Good lord u really will blindly believe this guy is the second coming of Moses won't you? Reality check your savior doesn't believe you should marry.
128 2H4 : Ok, so let's suppose that marriage is indeed a privilege and not a right. With that in mind, why is it illegal to deny someone a driver's license on
129 DocLightning : So you believe that the official position of the United States Supreme Court is incorrect, then? On what basis do you have the authority to declare t
130 Mir : It's not just us that feel differently. It's the Supreme Court. And the way they feel does actually have quite a bit of sway over things. -Mir
131 Post contains images Aaron747 : How does that wash with what you said below? Why does dogma need to be brought into individual freedoms? Again, if I can't do anything about my neigh
132 NIKV69 : Because there is a law on the books saying you can't. When the state votes that gays can marry then it will be illegal to deny them. The supreme cour
133 2H4 : As outlined in many of the above posts, what the states are doing is unconstitutional to begin with. Unfortunately, as history has shown, the states
134 Post contains links Pilotsmoe : That's incorrect http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...TCN30hf4tBjDjBy0Nddn9QaHwD9CC1FVO0
135 Mir : They also strike down laws that are unconstitutional, or unconstitutional applications of otherwise constitutional law (in other words, they make sur
136 AKiss20 : Exactly, judges interpret laws. Their job is to take a law from the lawmakers and not only say whether it is constitutional or not, but also to deter
137 DocLightning : The Supreme Court interpreted the law of the land in Loving. They also declared in their opinion that marriage is a "fundamental right." In further i
138 NIKV69 : Great but that opinion can't supercede state lawmakers voting on a bill. No sir it is you that is being made to look like a jerk. Your constant perso
139 ATCtower : Still no one is answering my question... Personally, I am straight, will be married soon, and have no bearing on the situation other than questioning
140 DocLightning : Yes it can. If they vote for something unconstitutional, then it certainly can. If the lawmakers want to get around the U.S. Constitution, their opti
141 NIKV69 : If my Mom had a penis she would be my father. You can throw out a million "ifs" fact is this won't happen and no matter what the judges say state law
142 2H4 : State law spoke.....unconstitutionally. 2H4
143 Aaron747 : A pass?? The guy's a failure on multiple fronts including this one and you say he's being given a pass? I don't throw around the term liar lightly. S
144 Mir : Yes it can. The Supreme Court has overruled state lawmakers many times throughout US history, and declared the laws that those lawmakers voted for nu
145 Mt99 : It does. My entire family is Catholic. I go to mass (once or twice a month) - and i like going to it. Going to mass fill my life on many levels - how
146 FlyDeltaJets87 : It was under Bush for many liberals under Bush too. Sucks when the shoe is on the other foot, doesn't it? Leadership Training 101: The worst action i
147 Post contains images Mt99 : Obama's positions are FAR more nuanced that Bush was. I agreed with Bush on a front or two   So a better situation for the gay cause would be for hi
148 ATCtower : Is anyone going to answer the question from reply 139 or do the right wing dips not have an answer? It is very straightforward.
149 Mir : To be fair, he's not taking no action - he's taking the action of not ranking it highly on the priority list. -Mir
150 Mt99 : And that - i think - is lightyears of what past presidents have done for the cause. If you are moving backwards, you have to stop first in order to s
151 DocLightning : Actually, it's more or less what Bush did. He just didn't touch it. Obama has done one thing. But I am afraid it will wind up being like Clinton, whe
152 San747 : Not with Constitutional issues. Rights given to a minority group can not and should not be susceptible to being voted away just because enough people
153 Aaron747 : What are you talking about? I happen to agree with Obama's foreign policy generally and initially supported the stimulus plan until it became clear t
154 Mt99 : I apologize, that was a punctuation mal-function. I did not mean to include you in that list. Well Karl Rove threw us under the bus for Bush's reelec
155 Mir : I seem to recall Bush calling regularly for a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Obama hasn't done anything close to that. -Mir
156 DocLightning : I seem to recall him saying he opposed such an amendment. Can you support that? I could very well be wrong. But I do remember some leaked phone conve
157 Post contains links Mir : February 25, 2004: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/24/elec04.prez.bush.marriage/ October 28, 2003: http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/30/b
158 LTBEWR : The battle is done for foreseeable future in NY State as to same gender marriage. Now it moves to New Jersey, to try to pass a bill for full same-gend
159 DocLightning : " target=_blank>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/...8.stm Thanks. It still seems to me as if he gave a lot of lip service to the anti-gay cause, b
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Support For CA Ban On Same Sex Marriage Drops posted Thu Sep 18 2008 16:06:59 by Travelin man
Senate To Vote On Flag-burning Amendment posted Tue Jun 27 2006 17:38:51 by Planespotting
In Support Of Same-Sex Marriage - What To Do Next? posted Wed May 27 2009 10:07:35 by Tugger
US Congress To Vote On Mandatory Paid Vacation Act posted Thu May 21 2009 16:59:47 by StasisLAX
Same-sex Marriage Demonstrations In Italy posted Sat Jan 14 2006 18:23:22 by ManuCH
Congress To Vote On Pulling Out Of Iraq posted Fri Nov 18 2005 22:32:44 by Texan
Canada Passes Same Sex Marriage Bill! posted Wed Jul 20 2005 22:40:16 by KLMA330
Same-Sex Marriage OK'd In Spain posted Thu Jun 30 2005 18:28:23 by Johnboy
Canada: Same-sex Marriage Bill Is Passed. posted Wed Jun 29 2005 03:36:40 by Jean Leloup
Same-Sex Marriage In Canada Come Thursday posted Tue Dec 7 2004 23:43:53 by SKYSERVICE_330