Equal marriage rights passed in NY

[PLAYER57832]

So, any word on why same sex marriage is so terrible for society, yet?

So far it looks like heterosexuals are still getting married in NY, so the arguments about it being an "attack on traditional marriage" seem a bit defunct.

The biggest attack on marriage is divorce. The leading cause of divorce is heterosexual marriage. I don't see how the homosexual community can endanger marriage any more than the heterosexual community already is.

I agree with this, sort of. That is, I think that we need to pay more attention to the real reasons people divorce, rather than just calling divorce "bad" (not that this is your intent.. I mean this is a thrust of the religious right).

For example, I am all in favor of requiring some financial and even general counseling prior to marriage.. as long as there are fully secular options as well as religious ones. To some extent, I think these things need to be included in general curricula, because once someone has decided to get married.. they tend to not be thinking so clearly . In particular, we do a HORRIBLE job of educating our kids about finances. However, with a GREAT DEAL of caution, I think discussion of relationships,etc is warranted. I am very nervous about that last being secular.. I do think churches need to do a better job of it. However, it might be possible to find some things to agree upon, or even just discuss. For example, while most people balk at "morality teaching" in schools, per se.. most agree that honesty and "don't hit" are basic rules that ought to be taught. In the relationship bit, the goal should be less about "think this way" and more about "think about how you deal with things, your particular values.. and how they will impact choices". That is, it can be part of a general "critical thinking" or "live in a dioverse society" type teachings.

[Nobunaga]

... I don't understand why the topic of gay marriage is a topic at all. Where is the resistance coming from, the religious right? I honestly pay no attention to the topic so I'm in the dark here.

... Personally I find homosexual behavior (sexual behavior, that is) revolting in the extreme, but to each his own, no? So long as their weddings aren't federally funded or something, who really cares?

...

[Phatscotty]

... I don't understand why the topic of gay marriage is a topic at all. Where is the resistance coming from, the religious right? I honestly pay no attention to the topic so I'm in the dark here.

... Personally I find homosexual behavior (sexual behavior, that is) revolting in the extreme, but to each his own, no? So long as their weddings aren't federally funded or something, who really cares?

...

hetero-sexual taxpayers?

[Symmetry]

... I don't understand why the topic of gay marriage is a topic at all. Where is the resistance coming from, the religious right? I honestly pay no attention to the topic so I'm in the dark here.

... Personally I find homosexual behavior (sexual behavior, that is) revolting in the extreme, but to each his own, no? So long as their weddings aren't federally funded or something, who really cares?

...

Why do you find it revolting?

[Phatscotty]

oh shit....

There goes the planet

[Nobunaga]

... I don't understand why the topic of gay marriage is a topic at all. Where is the resistance coming from, the religious right? I honestly pay no attention to the topic so I'm in the dark here.

... Personally I find homosexual behavior (sexual behavior, that is) revolting in the extreme, but to each his own, no? So long as their weddings aren't federally funded or something, who really cares?

...

Why do you find it revolting?

... I'll let you figure that one out on your own.

...

[Symmetry]

... I don't understand why the topic of gay marriage is a topic at all. Where is the resistance coming from, the religious right? I honestly pay no attention to the topic so I'm in the dark here.

... Personally I find homosexual behavior (sexual behavior, that is) revolting in the extreme, but to each his own, no? So long as their weddings aren't federally funded or something, who really cares?

...

Why do you find it revolting?

... I'll let you figure that one out on your own.

...

Do I have to marry you?

[Nobunaga]

... I don't understand why the topic of gay marriage is a topic at all. Where is the resistance coming from, the religious right? I honestly pay no attention to the topic so I'm in the dark here.

... Personally I find homosexual behavior (sexual behavior, that is) revolting in the extreme, but to each his own, no? So long as their weddings aren't federally funded or something, who really cares?

...

Why do you find it revolting?

... I'll let you figure that one out on your own.

...

Do I have to marry you?

... Can you cook well?

...

[Symmetry]

... I don't understand why the topic of gay marriage is a topic at all. Where is the resistance coming from, the religious right? I honestly pay no attention to the topic so I'm in the dark here.

... Personally I find homosexual behavior (sexual behavior, that is) revolting in the extreme, but to each his own, no? So long as their weddings aren't federally funded or something, who really cares?

...

Why do you find it revolting?

... I'll let you figure that one out on your own.

...

Do I have to marry you?

... Can you cook well?

...

I'm an excellent cook, and exceedingly modest. You'll barely be revolted at all.

[natty dread]

oh shit....

There goes the planet

What, now the planet is ruined?

[Baron Von PWN]

I know the issues. LESS GOVERNMENT! especially Federal! Ron Paul has spoken loudly in favor of states rights for years. If you are unable to take my word for it, take Ron Paul's?

why is everyone acting so weird in this thread?

Pssh Ron paul's been around way before the Tea party. excuse me but "Taxed Enough Already" the TEA party is about one thing only, less taxes! That's why I as a tea partier favor nationalising sectors of the economy and using those revenues to eliminate taxes.

I have now been swayed by this man's political stance, and from now on I am a Tea Partier, and I support nationalizing many sectors of the economy in order to use those revenues to eliminate taxes!

I see no difference between nationalizing the economy and taxation (except that taxation only takes some of the income)

I should have said Income taxes. Also Taxes are on revenue, nationalization is not a tax, it is an appropriation of property by the state for the legitimate interests of the nation (no income tax). Whoever owned the property will still be free to their income(perhaps working as a janitor at the establishment?), TAX FREE frankly I don't know why the USA hasn't implemented this completely reasonable tea party initiative already.

[Phatscotty]

That's how the USA was founded. No income taxes for 150 years.

Planes, trains, and automobiles.

Winning

[Symmetry]

I know the issues. LESS GOVERNMENT! especially Federal! Ron Paul has spoken loudly in favor of states rights for years. If you are unable to take my word for it, take Ron Paul's?

why is everyone acting so weird in this thread?

Pssh Ron paul's been around way before the Tea party. excuse me but "Taxed Enough Already" the TEA party is about one thing only, less taxes! That's why I as a tea partier favor nationalising sectors of the economy and using those revenues to eliminate taxes.

I have now been swayed by this man's political stance, and from now on I am a Tea Partier, and I support nationalizing many sectors of the economy in order to use those revenues to eliminate taxes!

I see no difference between nationalizing the economy and taxation (except that taxation only takes some of the income)

I should have said Income taxes. Also Taxes are on revenue, nationalization is not a tax, it is an appropriation of property by the state for the legitimate interests of the nation (no income tax). Whoever owned the property will still be free to their income(perhaps working as a janitor at the establishment?), TAX FREE frankly I don't know why the USA hasn't implemented this completely reasonable tea party initiative already.

This is a thread about Gay Marriage in New York, and while broader implications are up for discussion, I think that forum posts should be traditionally defined as between a topic and a relevant reply.

[Phatscotty]

states rights are why I support NY's decision. Go back a post before the one you chose to start with. Those guys are Tea'd off.

[Baron Von PWN]

This is a thread about Gay Marriage in New York, and while broader implications are up for discussion, I think that forum posts should be traditionally defined as between a topic and a relevant reply.

Fine marriage should also be nationalized.

[Symmetry]

This is a thread about Gay Marriage in New York, and while broader implications are up for discussion, I think that forum posts should be traditionally defined as between a topic and a relevant reply.

Fine marriage should also be nationalized.

What do you mean by "Fine marriage"? Some marriages aren't fine? I don't get what you're saying here, what do you mean by nationalised? Do you mean recognised by the government?

[Phatscotty]

This poll is turning against 15-9, strong emphasis on hardened against

[Woodruff]

... I don't understand why the topic of gay marriage is a topic at all. Where is the resistance coming from, the religious right? I honestly pay no attention to the topic so I'm in the dark here.

... Personally I find homosexual behavior (sexual behavior, that is) revolting in the extreme, but to each his own, no? So long as their weddings aren't federally funded or something, who really cares?
...

hetero-sexual taxpayers?

Why would heterosexual taxpayers give a crap?

This poll is turning against 15-9, strong emphasis on hardened against

As the closed-minded remain closed-minded. That's not really a surprise.

[Woodruff]

Something just occurred to me...shouldn't atheists getting married bother Christians more than homosexuals getting married?

[Baron Von PWN]

This is a thread about Gay Marriage in New York, and while broader implications are up for discussion, I think that forum posts should be traditionally defined as between a topic and a relevant reply.

Fine marriage should also be nationalized.

What do you mean by "Fine marriage"? Some marriages aren't fine? I don't get what you're saying here, what do you mean by nationalised? Do you mean recognised by the government?

Marriages between the most attractive people. So a fine looking couple which gets married. Using the "Fine" criteria the state would only be selecting the most geneticaly predisposed to success couples and therefore reach higher levels of revenue, this program would of course be open to homosexual couples. Traditionaly married couples must only care for themselves, in sickness and in health, a nationalised marriage would add the nation into the equation requiring the happy couple to care for the nation as well. Rightly so, the nation does so much for them! What a nationalisation of their marriage would mean is that they would become servants of the people in return for the states gracious allowance of their marriage. In essence when the state is in trouble they would be required to come to the state's aid, in return for all the wonderfull things the state doese for them. Likely at the moment the state would require more money to service its debts, this would not be a tax though but rather familial support. Would you call helping your family with their debts a tax? For shame how calous of you. This reasonable and well thought out tea party proposal will put the state on track for eliminating taxes by having the best of the people care for the state as much as the state cares for them.

[bradleybadly]

This poll is turning against 15-9, strong emphasis on hardened against

There have been polls related to this in the past. When you ask the question about homosexuality in general there is more of a turnout. However, this poll is asking about peoples' opinions after having read the arguments. As usual, the liberal oppressives come out on their moral high horse and act incredulous that anyone would have a differing opinion than themselves. As an instinctive reaction, they can only account for that by claiming that anyone opposed to their opinions are close-minded while they are the enlightened ones.

[PLAYER57832]

This poll is turning against 15-9, strong emphasis on hardened against

There have been polls related to this in the past. When you ask the question about homosexuality in general there is more of a turnout. However, this poll is asking about peoples' opinions after having read the arguments. As usual, the liberal oppressives come out on their moral high horse and act incredulous that anyone would have a differing opinion than themselves. As an instinctive reaction, they can only account for that by claiming that anyone opposed to their opinions are close-minded while they are the enlightened ones.

good to see you debating again bradleybadly...

Well, since "enlightened" means considering other views, ways of being.. that is rather axiomatic. Being opposed to homosexuality is, by definition "unenlightened".

Now, whether that is good or bad is another question.

We have debated this (you and I) earlier. Basically, you said you felt homosexuality is wrong and therefore bad for society (to sum a very complex debate) and I said that whether homosexuality is wrong or not is a moral/religious issue and the point is homosexuality does not cause more harm to society that prohibition of that activity.

As I remember it, you came the closest of anyone to showing real reasons why homosexual marriages should be outlawed, but it still came down to no real proof that homosexual marriages or even homosexuality harms anyone (other than those involved, if you believe it is morally wrong).

At some point, these things come down to opinion, so the debate continues.

[bradleybadly]

This poll is turning against 15-9, strong emphasis on hardened against

There have been polls related to this in the past. When you ask the question about homosexuality in general there is more of a turnout. However, this poll is asking about peoples' opinions after having read the arguments. As usual, the liberal oppressives come out on their moral high horse and act incredulous that anyone would have a differing opinion than themselves. As an instinctive reaction, they can only account for that by claiming that anyone opposed to their opinions are close-minded while they are the enlightened ones.

good to see you debating again bradleybadly...

Well, since "enlightened" means considering other views, ways of being.. that is rather axiomatic. Being opposed to homosexuality is, by definition "unenlightened".

Now, whether that is good or bad is another question.

We have debated this (you and I) earlier. Basically, you said you felt homosexuality is wrong and therefore bad for society (to sum a very complex debate) and I said that whether homosexuality is wrong or not is a moral/religious issue and the point is homosexuality does not cause more harm to society that prohibition of that activity.

As I remember it, you came the closest of anyone to showing real reasons why homosexual marriages should be outlawed, but it still came down to no real proof that homosexual marriages or even homosexuality harms anyone (other than those involved, if you believe it is morally wrong).

At some point, these things come down to opinion, so the debate continues.

Believe it or not, I do see the other side of the coin on this. But after having considered the other side, I believe that traditional marriage is what benefits society the best.

I've never really debated that homosexuality is wrong in a moral sense, but rather an unnatural act. As you already know, I'm an atheist and accept most of evolutionary theory. Because of that, I don't go around here telling people that engaging in sodomy is a sin, but rather an act which will increase the chance of contracting unnecessary illnesses. I also don't believe that just because heterosexuals have pissed all over the ideal of marriage, that that justifies eroding it even further to include all kinds of behaviors: homosexuality, polygamy, bestiality, pedophilia, incest......you get the picture. Once you eliminate what is naturally the optimal state for marriage you can't logically defend opening it up to those other groups. If you restrict marriage to now allow only homosexuals then you are playing favorites and discriminating against others.

What I've always been lectured about and still pisses me off is that liberal oppressives start saying that these laws should be based on consent. That's hardly a society that I believe in and think is optimal. Hell, let's just change all laws to be based on consent. I consent to buying cocaine and someone consents to sell it to me - anyone who is against that is a drugaphobe.

The other thing that is usually thrown around here is that homosexuality is biologically caused. Despite the lack of evidence to support this it is still touted (indirectly by calling anyone opposed to homosexual marriage or whatnot a bigot). The bigot card is regularly thrown around here as if homosexuality is the same as ethnicity. B.K. Barunt constantly refuted this but people are so programmed now to repeat words like "homophobe" that it just flew right over their heads. As a black man, it pisses me off to no end for my skin pigmentation and the civil rights movements of the 50s & 60s to be equated with lustful ass piracy.

[bradleybadly]

As I remember it, you came the closest of anyone to showing real reasons why homosexual marriages should be outlawed, but it still came down to no real proof that homosexual marriages or even homosexuality harms anyone (other than those involved, if you believe it is morally wrong).

At some point, these things come down to opinion, so the debate continues.

Player, sorry I missed this. You're right that it comes down to opinion eventually.

As far as the point that homosexual marriages "harm anyone", I believe that's a trick question (probably not intentional but a trick question nonetheless). The question insinuates that someone is physically harmed by someone else getting married and that's not what many people who support traditional 1-man/1-woman marriage believe. It's the institution and principle that 1-man/1-woman marriage is best that would be harmed.

As far as homosexual behavior itself and acting on it, I think the statistics from the CDC and other organizations pretty well show that male-to-male behavior is the most risky. Woman-to-woman is less risky, but also are risky in the sense that women tend to go outside of their lesbian relationships in order to have children. They unwittingly pass diseases on by having multiple sexual relationships to achieve that.

[natty dread]

Brad, were you abused by a drunken uncle when you were little?