gay marriage bill passed in ny .... wonderful

[so nyuh shi dae]

Originally Posted by ilpadrino9

The issue IS marrying the person of your choice. A homosexual person had the same right to marry as a heterosexual person BECAUSE their orientation was not taken into account. In order for orientation to come into play, the argument needs to be framed around the individual, i.e. a gay person wants to marry a gay person (or whom they choose). Therefore, the argument becomes about marrying the person that you choose. If we go back to the collective argument: homosexual couple are not allowed to marry because they are a homosexual couple, related couples are not allowed to marry because they are a related couple. A homosexual was allowed the same right as the collective (marry the opposite sex) but were denied the individual. Cousin A was allowed the same right as the collective (marry anyone you're not related to) but were denied the individual (Cousin B). They are denied that right because a right isn't bestowed to a group, it is bestowed to an individual. In the case of polygamy, the collective is allowed (marriage by any definition) but the individual is not allowed (marry someone who is already married).  If a gay person can marry a gay person, then the argument has to fall on the individual level.

Right, and I somewhat agree with what you're saying, but as it stands, no one is granted the right to multiple marriage contracts, so no one is being discriminated against. The definition of marriage between and man and a woman has religious origins which is not something that should be considered when there are legal implications. Homosexual couples seek to redefine marriage whereas polygamists seek to change how many marriages they can have. One seeks to grant equal rights whereas the other seeks to grant new rights to all. This is why they are two separate issues.

 

[so nyuh shi dae]

Originally Posted by ilpadrino9

The issue IS marrying the person of your choice. A homosexual person had the same right to marry as a heterosexual person BECAUSE their orientation was not taken into account. In order for orientation to come into play, the argument needs to be framed around the individual, i.e. a gay person wants to marry a gay person (or whom they choose). Therefore, the argument becomes about marrying the person that you choose. If we go back to the collective argument: homosexual couple are not allowed to marry because they are a homosexual couple, related couples are not allowed to marry because they are a related couple. A homosexual was allowed the same right as the collective (marry the opposite sex) but were denied the individual. Cousin A was allowed the same right as the collective (marry anyone you're not related to) but were denied the individual (Cousin B). They are denied that right because a right isn't bestowed to a group, it is bestowed to an individual. In the case of polygamy, the collective is allowed (marriage by any definition) but the individual is not allowed (marry someone who is already married).  If a gay person can marry a gay person, then the argument has to fall on the individual level.

Right, and I somewhat agree with what you're saying, but as it stands, no one is granted the right to multiple marriage contracts, so no one is being discriminated against. The definition of marriage between and man and a woman has religious origins which is not something that should be considered when there are legal implications. Homosexual couples seek to redefine marriage whereas polygamists seek to change how many marriages they can have. One seeks to grant equal rights whereas the other seeks to grant new rights to all. This is why they are two separate issues.

 

[ill legal operation]

Originally Posted by TimCity2000

Originally Posted by ILL LEGAL OPERATION


The last article/blog entry I posted suggested the following, I'd like to hear your (and several others) opinion on it:

I don’t understand the reasoning behind the suggestion that civil unions or some other marriage equivalent, with all the benefits of traditional legal marriage, are somehow not good enough. Olbermann seems to be saying that it is only the exact legal label applied to heterosexual unions — actual “marriage

 

[ill legal operation]

Originally Posted by TimCity2000

Originally Posted by ILL LEGAL OPERATION


The last article/blog entry I posted suggested the following, I'd like to hear your (and several others) opinion on it:

I don’t understand the reasoning behind the suggestion that civil unions or some other marriage equivalent, with all the benefits of traditional legal marriage, are somehow not good enough. Olbermann seems to be saying that it is only the exact legal label applied to heterosexual unions — actual “marriage

 

[timcity2000]

Originally Posted by Hop

Your in Alabama? 

Whats that like?

i grew up here, so it's hard for me to compare since it's really all i've known.  i like it just fine, though.

or do you mean what's it like to be gay in alabama?  so far, so good.

 

[timcity2000]

Originally Posted by Hop

Your in Alabama? 

Whats that like?

i grew up here, so it's hard for me to compare since it's really all i've known.  i like it just fine, though.

or do you mean what's it like to be gay in alabama?  so far, so good.

 

[sonoftony]

Originally Posted by Method Man


Due to extreme volatility, we are advising our clients to divest themselves of any stock placed in Ninjahood, who is currently at risk of being delisted by the NTSE.  

Best,

Billy Ray Valentine (Capricorn)

Duke and Duke Commodities

  

 

[sonoftony]

Originally Posted by Method Man


Due to extreme volatility, we are advising our clients to divest themselves of any stock placed in Ninjahood, who is currently at risk of being delisted by the NTSE.  

Best,

Billy Ray Valentine (Capricorn)

Duke and Duke Commodities

  

 

[deuce king]

I guess anything goes nowadays. 

 

[deuce king]

I guess anything goes nowadays. 

 

[furrell]

Originally Posted by ThunderChunk69

Originally Posted by DeadsetAce

some of the people in this thread probably shouldn't be allowed to reproduce

picking and choosing who can reproduce won't help your argument mister 

edit:

and for the record I'm for gay marriages and I'm surprised NY of all places took this long 

Have you ever been Upstate? Upstate and Downstate are as opposite as you can get. Upstate is red with the exception of the city of Syracuse and Downstate is as blue as you can get. There is a cultural divide and the politicians who represent the northern counties take that into consideration when voting on issues such as this except those that voted yes on the bill. Their careers are officially over and this will be used against them in the 2012 elections. The only way those who voted for this will get another political job is if they defect to the other side. If there's one thing that I learned about politics while being upstate, its that they hold their politicians accountable for their actions.

You bible bashers are just as bad if not worse than the bible thumpers. Many of you have yet to provide a defense for your stance but choose to bash God and the Bible instead. Its old. Get a new gimmick.

Anyway, I'm done with this thread. As I said before, it was never a moral issue. If it was, it would have passed years ago. The state is broke and needs the money that homosexual unions will bring in among other things.

 

[furrell]

Originally Posted by ThunderChunk69

Originally Posted by DeadsetAce

some of the people in this thread probably shouldn't be allowed to reproduce

picking and choosing who can reproduce won't help your argument mister 

edit:

and for the record I'm for gay marriages and I'm surprised NY of all places took this long 

Have you ever been Upstate? Upstate and Downstate are as opposite as you can get. Upstate is red with the exception of the city of Syracuse and Downstate is as blue as you can get. There is a cultural divide and the politicians who represent the northern counties take that into consideration when voting on issues such as this except those that voted yes on the bill. Their careers are officially over and this will be used against them in the 2012 elections. The only way those who voted for this will get another political job is if they defect to the other side. If there's one thing that I learned about politics while being upstate, its that they hold their politicians accountable for their actions.

You bible bashers are just as bad if not worse than the bible thumpers. Many of you have yet to provide a defense for your stance but choose to bash God and the Bible instead. Its old. Get a new gimmick.

Anyway, I'm done with this thread. As I said before, it was never a moral issue. If it was, it would have passed years ago. The state is broke and needs the money that homosexual unions will bring in among other things.

 

[|A-Man|]

Originally Posted by ILL LEGAL OPERATION

Originally Posted by TimCity2000

Originally Posted by ILL LEGAL OPERATION


The last article/blog entry I posted suggested the following, I'd like to hear your (and several others) opinion on it:

the author makes some valid points.  he thinks heterosexual and homosexual "marriages" should be called different things.  his attitude is that "separate but equal" is actually not a bad thing in this case.  again, i tend to disagree.  but those are just words, and they aren't at the heart of the matter for me.

the most important thing is that you, myself and the author agree that the same rights should be given to homosexual partnerships as are given to heterosexual ones.

Not trying to poke or pry, but exactly what it is you disagree with is lost upon me...
...make me see your point of view.

I don't see the point of the gov't giving it a different title just to make ppl who don't like it feel at ease. If it was passed under the label of civil union or w/e other title you come with it gay ppl are still gonna say "We're getting married"

As for the article last point if homosexuals want to "mimic" heterosexuals so be it. It would just further show in that instance that they aren't that different and hypocritical like everyone else.

 

[|A-Man|]

Originally Posted by ILL LEGAL OPERATION

Originally Posted by TimCity2000

Originally Posted by ILL LEGAL OPERATION


The last article/blog entry I posted suggested the following, I'd like to hear your (and several others) opinion on it:

the author makes some valid points.  he thinks heterosexual and homosexual "marriages" should be called different things.  his attitude is that "separate but equal" is actually not a bad thing in this case.  again, i tend to disagree.  but those are just words, and they aren't at the heart of the matter for me.

the most important thing is that you, myself and the author agree that the same rights should be given to homosexual partnerships as are given to heterosexual ones.

Not trying to poke or pry, but exactly what it is you disagree with is lost upon me...
...make me see your point of view.

I don't see the point of the gov't giving it a different title just to make ppl who don't like it feel at ease. If it was passed under the label of civil union or w/e other title you come with it gay ppl are still gonna say "We're getting married"

As for the article last point if homosexuals want to "mimic" heterosexuals so be it. It would just further show in that instance that they aren't that different and hypocritical like everyone else.

 

[fuzzyrobot]

 

[fuzzyrobot]

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by FuzzyRobot

Nah yo, Ninjahood has done extensive scientific research on  this matter. Only gay people have gay babies. He has isolated and purified the molecule that seems to be the culprit.

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by FuzzyRobot

Nah yo, Ninjahood has done extensive scientific research on  this matter. Only gay people have gay babies. He has isolated and purified the molecule that seems to be the culprit.

 

[whyhellothere]

Originally Posted by FuzzyRobot

 

[whyhellothere]

Originally Posted by FuzzyRobot

 

[cwrite78]

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by FuzzyRobot

Nah yo, Ninjahood has done extensive scientific research on  this matter. Only gay people have gay babies. He has isolated and purified the molecule that seems to be the culprit.

took a lot of man hours on craigslist during his research.

yes pun.

 

[cwrite78]

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by FuzzyRobot

Nah yo, Ninjahood has done extensive scientific research on  this matter. Only gay people have gay babies. He has isolated and purified the molecule that seems to be the culprit.

took a lot of man hours on craigslist during his research.

yes pun.

 

[biggie62]

I'm just proud to be a NYer for having this finally pass. No need to discriminate against a certain group and not give them the same equal rights as another.

 

[biggie62]

I'm just proud to be a NYer for having this finally pass. No need to discriminate against a certain group and not give them the same equal rights as another.