New York State Senate passes same sex marriage bill.e

[Acanthus]

So, how long until Polygamy/Polyandry is legalized again? How about group marriages or line marriages?

Because in the image you link, the changes are due to race laws (which existed for only a short time in the 6000+ years of marriage and only in certain western civilizations) or laws against rights of the wife.

Honestly i don't care about marriage at all other than the states view on it.

I'm actually an atheist.

I do however think it is unethical to discriminate against someone for sexual preferences.

Therefore, the state should not discriminate same-sex unions / marriage / whatever you want to call it.

 

[Craig234]

Well....................I am glad you brought this up. Because in another thread we can clearly see that what I have been saying all along this is just not about marriage. You and the whole gay and lesbian chapter on this board have called me all kinds of names. But I stated that I have no problem with homosexuality or even gay marriage. But it is CLEAR as day that unfortunately this is going beyond just that of gay marriage.

I really don't care. But I do care about misguiding kids and flatout lying to them.

Wow, you just reversed your statements for months and years here.

It's like George Bush saying 'I always said WMD didn't matter'.

But whatever - if 'you have no problem with homosexuality or gay marriage', glad to hear the brain surgery worked. Good. Whatever you DO have an issue with, who knows or cares.

 

[RedChief]

Honestly i don't care about marriage at all other than the states view on it.

I'm actually an atheist.

I do however think it is unethical to discriminate against someone for sexual preferences.

Therefore, the state should not discriminate same-sex unions / marriage / whatever you want to call it.

If marriage as a religious institution was separated from civil unions, then that may work better for churches to reinforce marriage as being between a man and a woman. But currently the Catholic charities are being forced to go against their religion and place kids with same sex couples (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/191kgwgh.asp) and tax examptions are denied when churches dont allow their facilities to be used for gay weddings (http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/new_jersey_attacks_religious_freedom_of_methodist_campground/).

Of course the state wants to force the general populace to accept homosexual behavior, or punish those who don't agree with it.

Dont accept homosexual behavior? Get kicked out of grad school - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zsfcqKlL5s
Support traditional marriage amendments? Get your license threatened - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YJOIOm8HAQ
Speak out against same-sex parenting at college? Get threatened - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avEeswjaqaQ

To the same-sex marriage mob, freedom means being free to marry who you choose along with punishing those who disagree with you.

 

[Harvey]

If marriage as a religious institution was separated from civil unions, then that may work better for churches to reinforce marriage as being between a man and a woman. But currently the Catholic charities are being forced to go against their religion and place kids with same sex couples (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/191kgwgh.asp) and tax examptions are denied when churches dont allow their facilities to be used for gay weddings (http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/new_jersey_attacks_religious_freedom_of_methodist_campground/).

I NEVER believe anything from the Weakly Standard or publications from the Catholic church. They both have their own agendas, and neither has any obligation to speak the truth, or any history of having done so, when it conflicts with their own dogma.

 

[1prophet]

I NEVER believe anything from the Weakly Standard or publications from the Catholic church. They both have their own agendas, and neither has any obligation to speak the truth, or any history of having done so, when it conflicts with their own dogma.

Better source?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486340

 

[Craig234]

Better source?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486340

There's going to be some resentment about equality.

Churches are not being forced to marry anyone.

But take the wedding photographers who refused to shoot a gay wedding.

What if they refused to shoot black weddings? It's the same idea as if they ran a restaurant and the wedding party showed up to eat and they said 'we don't serve blacks'.

When there are laws for non-discrimination, they apply to businesses serving the public.

 

[zsdersw]

If marriage as a religious institution was separated from civil unions, then that may work better for churches to reinforce marriage as being between a man and a woman. But currently the Catholic charities are being forced to go against their religion and place kids with same sex couples (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/191kgwgh.asp)

The key detail you forgot to mention is that public money was going to this charity. A private organization taking public money... you're damned right they shouldn't be allowed to discriminate.

and tax examptions are denied when churches dont allow their facilities to be used for gay weddings (http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/new_jersey_attacks_religious_freedom_of_methodist_campground/).

Again... churches and other private institutions can be as discriminatory as they want, but they have to do it on their own dime, not the public's... and tax exemption is another form of that.

Of course the state wants to force the general populace to accept homosexual behavior, or punish those who don't agree with it.

Dont accept homosexual behavior? Get kicked out of grad school - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zsfcqKlL5s
Support traditional marriage amendments? Get your license threatened - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YJOIOm8HAQ
Speak out against same-sex parenting at college? Get threatened - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avEeswjaqaQ

To the same-sex marriage mob, freedom means being free to marry who you choose along with punishing those who disagree with you.

Yup, there are some insane people running these universities and organizations... but what's your point? Want a list of threats made against gay people?

There's zealous mobs on both sides of almost every issue. On homosexuality, though, it's pretty ridiculous for "your side" to claim victim status.

 

[werepossum]

Good for New York. Government should never have the power to determine who one can and cannot marry, or to decide how exactly one may or may not pursue happiness as long as it is without materially harming others.

I would really prefer though that rights be established at the national level and economic policy established at the state level.

 

[1prophet]

The key detail you forgot to mention is that public money was going to this charity. A private organization taking public money... you're damned right they shouldn't be allowed to discriminate.



Again... churches and other private institutions can be as discriminatory as they want, but they have to do it on their own dime, not the public's... and tax exemption is another form of that.

Taking money from the government yes, tax exemption no since they give up certain rights for that tax exemption like openly engaging in politics which is a fair trade off and better for everyone.

By not taxing churches, the government is prevented from directly interfering with how churches operate. By the same token, those churches are also prevented from directly interfering with how the government operates in that they cannot endorse any political candidates, they cannot campaign on behalf of any candidates, and they cannot attack any political candidate.

We don't need another Bob Jones University incident so a new more powerful religious right can be created that will be fully immersed in politics.

 

[nonlnear]

Good for New York. Government should never have the power to determine who one can and cannot marry, or to decide how exactly one may or may not pursue happiness as long as it is without materially harming others.

I too am an advocate for legalized polygamy (of both the polygynous and polyandrous varieties). This is a decent step in the right direction.

 

[werepossum]

I too am an advocate for legalized polygamy (of both the polygynous and polyandrous varieties). This is a decent step in the right direction.

Well, I am a bit more cautious about polygamy, if only because of the history of cultish child abuse, but with certain safeguards I'd support that too. However, gay marriage is a little simpler. Saying that gay people have the exact same rights as straight people - to marry someone of the opposite sex - is, while technically true, much like Ford saying that you could have your new car in any color you wanted as long as it's black. Or it would be, if Ford had had tax breaks to hand out, armed men to enforce his all-black preference, and prisons to lock up offenders.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

So, how long until Polygamy/Polyandry is legalized again? How about group marriages or line marriages?

Why should those be legalized?

You must understand that at the core of the same-sex marriage movement is simply a push for the equality of rights entitled to all citizens according to the Constitution in the 14th Amendment. While Jane has the right to marry Jack, and yet John does not have the right to marry Jack, the rights of John and Jane are not equal. The equality of citizen's rights are Constitutionally guaranteed.

If the law said that no person could marry more than one person, regardless of gender, race, or any other characteristic, everyone is equally restricted, and therefore there is no inequality, and therefore no violation of the 14th Amendment.

The short answer is to take your slippery slope and shove it where the sun doesn't shine. Some of us are smarter than that. Too bad you apparently cannot be counted among us.

 

[RisenZealot]

Why should those be legalized?

You must understand that at the core of the same-sex marriage movement is simply a push for the equality of rights entitled to all citizens according to the Constitution in the 14th Amendment. While Jane has the right to marry Jack, and yet John does not have the right to marry Jack, the rights of John and Jane are not equal. The equality of citizen's rights are Constitutionally guaranteed.

If the law said that no person could marry more than one person, regardless of gender, race, or any other characteristic, everyone is equally restricted, and therefore there is no inequality, and therefore no violation of the 14th Amendment.

The short answer is to take your slippery slope and shove it where the sun doesn't shine. Some of us are smarter than that. Too bad you apparently cannot be counted among us.

In the short time I've been here I've never once agreed with you. This time though I have to say you are absolutely correct. Even though I feel you talk down to people as if they are dogs for simply believing differently then you I can't find the first thing wrong with your post

ps. I'm marking the calander, we agreed lol.

 

[Craig234]

I lean towards legalizing polygamy because I can't think of a good reason to have laws telling people who want it they can't have it.

Not because the issue of equality for gays to marry is the same issue as equality for polygamy, because polygamy is different.

I don't think this one is headed anywhere anytime soon, though, for a variety of reasons from small number of people affected to a lack of public education.

 

[nonlnear]

Why should those be legalized?

You must understand that at the core of the same-sex marriage movement is simply a push for the equality of rights entitled to all citizens according to the Constitution in the 14th Amendment. While Jane has the right to marry Jack, and yet John does not have the right to marry Jack, the rights of John and Jane are not equal. The equality of citizen's rights are Constitutionally guaranteed.

If the law said that no person could marry more than one person, regardless of gender, race, or any other characteristic, everyone is equally restricted, and therefore there is no inequality, and therefore no violation of the 14th Amendment.

The short answer is to take your slippery slope and shove it where the sun doesn't shine. Some of us are smarter than that. Too bad you apparently cannot be counted among us.

What makes you say it's a slippery slope argument? Sure there are some morons who make the case that if we let the gays marry, then we'll have to allow polygamy, and allow people to marry pigs and sofas. These people implicitly lump polygamy in with idiotic things. On the other hand there are people who honestly advocate for legalizing polygamy because there is simply no compelling case against it other than residual Victorian prudishness which itself fed off of the colonial mentality of belittling "savage" cultures.

Granted, polygamy and gay marriage aren't the same issue, but if one desires liberalization of marriage restrictions based upon a principled repeal of senseless government intrusions into private life, then they are related.

 

[Mursilis]

I lean towards legalizing polygamy because I can't think of a good reason to have laws telling people who want it they can't have it.

I completely agree with this (with the understanding that logistically, polygamy would be could easily become a legalistic nightmare on a practical level).

Not because the issue of equality for gays to marry is the same issue as equality for polygamy, because polygamy is different.

To me, they're essentially the same. I've never really bought the equal protection argument, because straight people currently enjoy no additional rights not enjoyed by gay people - both may marry someone of the opposite sex. Rather, I'd allow gay marriage simply because in denying it, gov't is making an arbitary and capricious moral judgment that it has no business and no authority to make. It's similar to gov't banning alcohol consumption by all because it's considered immoral by some. If the action does not affect others in any meaningful way, gov't simply has no basis to outlaw it.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

What makes you say it's a slippery slope argument?

Particularly the form of his argument, which seemed to suggest that permitting same-sex marriages necessarily required the legalization of group marriages.

Sure there are some morons who make the case that if we let the gays marry, then we'll have to allow polygamy, and allow people to marry pigs and sofas. These people implicitly lump polygamy in with idiotic things. On the other hand there are people who honestly advocate for legalizing polygamy because there is simply no compelling case against it other than residual Victorian prudishness which itself fed off of the colonial mentality of belittling "savage" cultures.

I think it is clear that the government has a compelling interest to limit the number of people that a person can marry, lest we introduce the possibility of literally the whole country marrying each other and the IRS only receiving a single tax filing every year. Obviously that's improbable to the point of silliness, but the point is that the line would have to be drawn somewhere, and ultimately it would be arbitrary. I don't have a problem with polygamous marriages in principle, but I do think that there needs to be a limit. I don't see why that limit could not be one, as it isn't any less arbitrary than 100 or 10,000.

 

[HAL9000]

I completely agree with this (with the understanding that logistically, polygamy would be could easily become a legalistic nightmare on a practical level).



To me, they're essentially the same. I've never really bought the equal protection argument, because straight people currently enjoy no additional rights not enjoyed by gay people - both may marry someone of the opposite sex. Rather, I'd allow gay marriage simply because in denying it, gov't is making an arbitary and capricious moral judgment that it has no business and no authority to make. It's similar to gov't banning alcohol consumption by all because it's considered immoral by some. If the action does not affect others in any meaningful way, gov't simply has no basis to outlaw it.

There is a difference between between sexuality and polygamy however, in that polygamy is a choice, whereas sexuality isn't.

Also there is a rights issue with gay marriage, because while both gay and straight people have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, only straight people have the legal right to marry someone their are attracted to.