New York State Senate passes same sex marriage bill.e

[dmcowen674]

Laughable.........

Our newly embraced future...............just wanna vomit

You make us real Americans want to vomit.

Go live in a country more suitable to your bigotry and hatred.

 

[Aegeon]

I understand that if the Supreme Court rules that a State cannot ban the marriage of like sexes, but the full faith and credit thing does not work. If you hang your argument on that, I would be more than willing to accept it. That would mean that the State of New York would have to recognize a Texas citizen right to carry a concealed weapon. So if I visited New York city I could bring my Browning or Ruger with me. I like it. That would be a good trade, I think.

The difference is states can make a stronger public safety argument for restricting concealed carry. Even Justice Scalia noted in a recent case of the general subject "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues ... The majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States

The public safety argument seems much less convincing on the Gay Marriage argument since it just doesn't generally apply nearly to the same degree. (In fact you can argue that the issue of the transmission of HIV and the like is an argument for gay marriage since those legally married are therefore less likely to sleep around as much.)

Another related argument is that the degree of complications for the failure to recognize the law are much greater in the case of gay marriage. Divorce and child custody are two glaring areas, and some court justices may feel they can't effectively recognize the impact of gay marriage in these situations without imposing the full faith and credit clause to gay marriage period. You also have the reality that person involved in a gay marriage with a family in could learn their company is relocating from New York to Alabama or the like, they are suddenly in a position of losing their job or a huge number of legal rights.

The difference is there are no states where you are not able to at least carry a gun openly, so you can argue there is not the same degree of inconvenience if someone has to go to another state where concealed carry is not recognized. (If you are viably armed that really should address the issue if you are concerned about your personal safety.) In fact, recent Supreme Court decisions have rather clearly established you should be able to obtain the right to carry a handgun anywhere in the US (at least as far as the boundaries of states and cities etc are concerned) for purpose of ensuring your personal safety. (With narrow potential exceptions such as felons, the insane, etc.)

 

[JockoJohnson]

So what if it were a choice? I thought the whole liberty thing was about being able to choose to live your life how you saw fit so long as it didn't infringe on the rights of others.

^This. Good for New York. Still not sure why this isn't a federal issue since people can travel across state lines. (I know someone else mentioned this before in the thread).

 

[zsdersw]

Yes it is or it would have been evolved out of existence a long time ago.

Homosexuality has been present in humanity for centuries... and continues to exist elsewhere in the animal kingdom.

You do nothing well, apparently, except make yourself look stupid.

 

[shadow9d9]

Did I say that heterosexualism was a choice?

Umm, yeah.. so as I said.. tell me about when you made a choice whether to be homosexual or not...

And actually respond to the scientific proof I showed...

 

[zsdersw]

Not so sure about that. there do were gay, then were not gay and vice versa. It is without a doubt an interesting topic, but there appear to be no absolutes on that.

Homosexuality is the attraction to the same sex. The only choice is whether or not to acknowledge it and whether or not to engage in same-sex sexual activities.

If heterosexuals are free to choose to form and have recognized a relationship with someone they love, homosexuals should be free to form and have recognized a relationship with someone they love.

 

[zsdersw]

Can we just make it federal law that gays can get married and move our attention to more important things.

Of course not. No one is interested in working on "more important things" because those invariably involve some form of action or self-sacrifice. It's much more popular to waste time throwing opinions around on items that have zero direct impact on each of our own lives.

 

[Carmen813]

Very satisfied to see this become law in NY. Also surprised that the GOP let it come up for a vote.

Frankly, very glad to see more equality. One thing the "majority" never seems to recognize is how being "privilege" hurts them too, just in a different way. Think of how many activities/emotions men and women are "forbidden" from participating in due to homophobia/heteronormativity and this point should become more clear.

For those arguing the evolution perspective, plenty of biological reasons that homosexuality would continue to exist and not be "evolved out." It just requires you to think more complexly than "omg they can't have babies therefore it must be a choice!"

I woke up this morning and the sun was still shining, I still had work to do, and my marriage still had the same meaning it had yesterday. Well, scratch that. My marriage actually gained some additional meaning for me today.

 

[nageov3t]

I can buy the argument that homosexuality is a choice -- insofar as gay people choose to act on their homosexual urges.

but still, we're talking about two consenting adults engaging in a legal contract that has no implications for anyone outside of the couple. so even if it's a choice, I'm not seeing any argument in there for gay marriage to be illegal.

 

[zsdersw]

I can buy the argument that homosexuality is a choice -- insofar as gay people choose to act on their homosexual urges.

Many of the people bringing up the whole "choice" argument aren't prepared to view heterosexuality in the same light... even though it should be viewed like that. They're making the choice to act on their heterosexual urges just like homosexuals are making the choice to act on their homosexual urges.

 

[Carmen813]

I can buy the argument that homosexuality is a choice -- insofar as gay people choose to act on their homosexual urges.

but still, we're talking about two consenting adults engaging in a legal contract that has no implications for anyone outside of the couple. so even if it's a choice, I'm not seeing any argument in there for gay marriage to be illegal.

Having sex is a choice (well, ideally). Whom you are attracted to is not.

What is the difference between homosexual and heterosexual urgers? The correct answer is nothing.

The problem here is heteronormativity. Look it up.

 

[nageov3t]

I'm tired as fuck because I was choosing to be gay until like 6 am 🙁

 

[MotF Bane]

Ok.

Gay is a choice.

That's OK. Choice is a good thing in a free society. Now that New York has made the union of two men or two women legal, would they still be legal if they moved to, say, Texas?

Saying it twice does not make it any less of an inaccurate statement. Find a new justification for your bigotry.

 

[MotF Bane]

No, I said that homosexuality was a choice.

So heterosexuality is not a choice, but homosexuality is.

Yeah, this TOTALLY makes sense.

Why, then, do you propose that anyone would choose to have a sexual orientation that is mocked and denigrated by bigots, often scorned, ignored, or even "beaten out of you" by parents, something that is used as an insult by schoolchildren, college students, and even many adults? Why would anyone would choose to proclaim themselves gay when it may get them assaulted, beaten, or killed, depending on where you live and who knows? Why would anyone choose that lifestyle that will deny you "marriage", or even the basic rights to see your partner in the hospital, to make medical decisions for them by default if they cannot, and keep you from the financial tax-related benefits of marriage? Why would anyone choose to often be kicked out of their chosen church, and to not be allowed to adopt by certain adoption agencies? Why would anyone choose a lifestyle that will prevent them from donating blood, even if they wish to do something to help others? Why?

 

[a777pilot]

Saying it twice does not make it any less of an inaccurate statement. Find a new justification for your bigotry.

I will be as bigoted as I feel I want to be. It is my choice. If you don't like it, too bad. There is nothing you can do about it.

I don't care if there are gays or not. I just don't want it out in my face. Hell, I don't want straights to be out in my face either. Why not just keep it behind closed doors between consenting adults? Or is that asking too much.

Also, it is NOT marriage. You can make it legal but you can not change the definition of the word. Find another word. I have in the past suggested "pairage". Seems logical.

This does open the door, sort of speak. If two males or two females can now legally be joined in a union.....can three males or three females? I don't see why not.

 

[Carmen813]

I will be as bigoted as I feel I want to be. It is my choice. If you don't like it, too bad. There is nothing you can do about it.

I don't care if there are gays or not. I just don't want it out in my face. Hell, I don't want straights to be out in my face either. Why not just keep it behind closed doors between consenting adults? Or is that asking too much.

Also, it is NOT marriage. You can make it legal but you can not change the definition of the word. Find another word. I have in the past suggested "pairage". Seems logical.

This does open the door, sort of speak. If two males or two females can now legally be joined in a union.....can three males or three females? I don't see why not.

No, you will be as bigoted as people judge you to be. Staying there is your choice.

You obviously do care or else you wouldn't be furiously posting these irrationalities.

 

[Icepick]

Good for NY.

 

[a777pilot]

No, you will be as bigoted as people judge you to be. Staying there is your choice.

You obviously do care or else you wouldn't be furiously posting these irrationalities.

I agree. Gay marriage is an irrationality.

It makes no sense. How can it? It's un-natural.

 

[Carmen813]

I agree. Gay marriage is an irrationality.

It makes no sense. How can it? It's un-natural.

You aren't very skilled at trolling.

 

[fskimospy]

I will be as bigoted as I feel I want to be. It is my choice. If you don't like it, too bad. There is nothing you can do about it.

I don't care if there are gays or not. I just don't want it out in my face. Hell, I don't want straights to be out in my face either. Why not just keep it behind closed doors between consenting adults? Or is that asking too much.

Also, it is NOT marriage. You can make it legal but you can not change the definition of the word. Find another word. I have in the past suggested "pairage". Seems logical.

This does open the door, sort of speak. If two males or two females can now legally be joined in a union.....can three males or three females? I don't see why not.

Didn't we already clear up that you were wrong about the definition of marriage? The dictionary disagrees with you.

 

[Craig234]

I agree. Gay marriage is an irrationality.

You are an irrationality.

It makes no sense. How can it? It's un-natural.

You're exactly wrong. It's entirely natural.

Specifically, it's natural for the few percent of human beings naturally gay to be so. Clearly, it would be a problem for the species for 100% to be gay - and 100% isn't.

What's unnatural is some people's irrational reaction - just as some people have reacted badly to all kinds of things. BURN THE WITCH! You are one of those 'unnatural' people.

Some people have declared that, say, women's monthly cycles are unnatural, and have created all kinds of myths around them, declaring women evil and so on. They're like you.

 

[Craig234]

nm

 

[Craig234]

That doesn't answer the question. How, by what legal method, would Texas be forced, under law, to accept these so called "marriages" as legal in the State of Texas?

Yes, it did answer the question. What part didn't you understand?

One way this could happen is that the lawsuit, ruled on by a federal judge, when it reaches the Supreme Court wins there, and becomes the law of the land.

Just as Texas' anti-sodomy laws were erased by a Supreme Court decision they violated constitutional rights, Texas' gay discrimination laws on marriage would be erased.

 

[Craig234]

nm

 

[HAL9000]

Laughable.........

Our newly embraced future...............just wanna vomit

I reserve this word for only a very few people:

You're a wise and beautiful woman.