gay marriage bill passed in ny .... wonderful

[nako xl]

Originally Posted by So Nyuh Shi Dae

Originally Posted by Nako XL

idk. i'm tired of arguing with you.

carry on.

Uh, okay. I was actually just trying to discuss the topic with you.

no i know. and no offense intended, i just felt like i was repeating the same thing to you and the others.

 

[so nyuh shi dae]

Originally Posted by anotherprodigy

But, he is saying that polygamist are not enjoying equal rights. I feel as if we can make an exception for homosexuals and abolish the original meaning of marriage then we can redefine it to include polygamy. What other reason is there to exclude them if we can redefine the term to include man and man, or woman and woman? It can easily be husband and multiple wives, or wife married to multiple husbands. It is legal to have children with multiple women, so that cannot be the deterrent.

I know what he is saying, but the point is that no one can marry multiple people, so they are not being denied equal rights. They have the same rights as everyone else. Homosexual couples were being denied the option to get married because they were gay. Polygamists are being denied the option to marry multiple people because no one can marry more than one person. They are not being discriminated against because they are polygamists.

The only real argument I see against polygamy is that you might be able to exploit the legal benefits from marriage by marrying many different people. I don't know how much there really is to gain through that.

 

[so nyuh shi dae]

Originally Posted by anotherprodigy

But, he is saying that polygamist are not enjoying equal rights. I feel as if we can make an exception for homosexuals and abolish the original meaning of marriage then we can redefine it to include polygamy. What other reason is there to exclude them if we can redefine the term to include man and man, or woman and woman? It can easily be husband and multiple wives, or wife married to multiple husbands. It is legal to have children with multiple women, so that cannot be the deterrent.

I know what he is saying, but the point is that no one can marry multiple people, so they are not being denied equal rights. They have the same rights as everyone else. Homosexual couples were being denied the option to get married because they were gay. Polygamists are being denied the option to marry multiple people because no one can marry more than one person. They are not being discriminated against because they are polygamists.

The only real argument I see against polygamy is that you might be able to exploit the legal benefits from marriage by marrying many different people. I don't know how much there really is to gain through that.

 

[sreggie101]

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by CWrite78

im surprised they didn't bring in old/young (under aged) couples or animals.



it usually goes that way.



if gays can get married, why can't a guy/girl marry a less than 18 year old, or why can't this guy/girl marry his dog or why can't this guy/girl marry 100 people and so on

Yo if gays can get married, why can't I marry my blow-up doll.

i think you can in certain other countries lol

 

[sreggie101]

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by CWrite78

im surprised they didn't bring in old/young (under aged) couples or animals.



it usually goes that way.



if gays can get married, why can't a guy/girl marry a less than 18 year old, or why can't this guy/girl marry his dog or why can't this guy/girl marry 100 people and so on

Yo if gays can get married, why can't I marry my blow-up doll.

i think you can in certain other countries lol

 

[rsdplaya]

I didn't and won't even look through this thread cuz I don't want to read loads of ignorance...but

for the bill being passed.

 

[rsdplaya]

I didn't and won't even look through this thread cuz I don't want to read loads of ignorance...but

for the bill being passed.

 

[cwrite78]

Originally Posted by Tony Montana

The end of the world coming and my city the proof.

you should end your life already, if not, you're going to die together with the homosexuals and the rest of us that support them.

 

[ill legal operation]

Originally Posted by TimCity2000

Originally Posted by ILL LEGAL OPERATION

Ok...
http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/gays-against-adam-and-steve/

http://stuartschneiderman.blogspot.com/2011/02/gays-against-gay-marriage.html

http://nogaymarriage.wordpress.com/

...don't be lazy - read them.

did you?

the fight for gay marriage is/was primarily a fight for equal rights.  the author clearly supports that aspect of it:

"Don’t get me wrong. I think Sam should have inheritance/pension/social security rights, be my healthcare proxy, get the tax breaks, be eligible for citizenship, etc., etc., exactly like heterosexual married couples."

the author's resistance is to the use of the term "gay marriage."  i understand his point, although i tend to disagree with him.  

Of course I did...
...and it's funny because out of the three articles I posted, you just so happened to pull the one quote that sums up my entire stance on equal rights as they pertain to homosexual couples and "marriage."

Let me be unequivocally clear and dispel any ambiguity: I'll always be against gay MARRIAGE...

...but I'll always support "civil unions" granting homosexuals the same rights and benefits as heterosexual couples - you've already said that you understand that point, so that issue is mute - now as to what you disagree with, please, do tell.

My question has always been the same: why are homosexuals so determined to have their union categorized as a "marriage?" If a civil union were to give you the same rights as heterosexual couples, then what is there to fight against?

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

Ok...
http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/gays-against-adam-and-steve/

http://stuartschneiderman.blogspot.com/2011/02/gays-against-gay-marriage.html

http://nogaymarriage.wordpress.com/

...don't be lazy - read them.

did you?

the fight for gay marriage is/was primarily a fight for equal rights.  the author clearly supports that aspect of it:

"Don’t get me wrong. I think Sam should have inheritance/pension/social security rights, be my healthcare proxy, get the tax breaks, be eligible for citizenship, etc., etc., exactly like heterosexual married couples."

the author's resistance is to the use of the term "gay marriage."  i understand his point, although i tend to disagree with him.  

Of course I did...
...and it's funny because out of the three articles I posted, you just so happened to pull the one quote that sums up my entire stance on equal rights as they pertain to homosexual couples and "marriage."

Let me be unequivocally clear and dispel any ambiguity: I'll always be against gay MARRIAGE...

...but I'll always support "civil unions" granting homosexuals the same rights and benefits as heterosexual couples - you've already said that you understand that point, so that issue is mute - now as to what you disagree with, please, do tell.

My question has always been the same: why are homosexuals so determined to have their union categorized as a "marriage?" If a civil union were to give you the same rights as heterosexual couples, then what is there to fight against?

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

 

[cwrite78]

Originally Posted by Tony Montana

The end of the world coming and my city the proof.

you should end your life already, if not, you're going to die together with the homosexuals and the rest of us that support them.

 

[so nyuh shi dae]

Originally Posted by ILL LEGAL OPERATION

Of course I did...
...and it's funny because out of the three articles I posted, you just so happened to pull the one quote that sums up my entire stance on equal rights as they pertain to homosexual couples and "marriage."

Let me be unequivocally clear and dispel any ambiguity: I'll always be against gay MARRIAGE...

...but I'll always support "civil unions" granting homosexuals the same rights and benefits as heterosexual couples - you've already said that you understand that point, so that issue is mute - now as to what you disagree with, please, do tell.

My question has always been the same: why are homosexuals so determined to have their union categorized as a "marriage?" If a civil union were to give you the same rights as heterosexual couples, then what is there to fight against?

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

And yeah, all I did was google "gays against gay marriage" - but that does nothing to prove or disprove the truths asserted in the articles...

...so that's wholly irrelevant.

As far as I'm aware, the only people concerned with whether it's called marriage or not are the religious that feel that they deserve the legal benefits of marriage and the right to exclude who they want based on their beliefs. Why should it not be called a marriage?

 

[so nyuh shi dae]

Originally Posted by ILL LEGAL OPERATION

Of course I did...
...and it's funny because out of the three articles I posted, you just so happened to pull the one quote that sums up my entire stance on equal rights as they pertain to homosexual couples and "marriage."

Let me be unequivocally clear and dispel any ambiguity: I'll always be against gay MARRIAGE...

...but I'll always support "civil unions" granting homosexuals the same rights and benefits as heterosexual couples - you've already said that you understand that point, so that issue is mute - now as to what you disagree with, please, do tell.

My question has always been the same: why are homosexuals so determined to have their union categorized as a "marriage?" If a civil union were to give you the same rights as heterosexual couples, then what is there to fight against?

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

And yeah, all I did was google "gays against gay marriage" - but that does nothing to prove or disprove the truths asserted in the articles...

...so that's wholly irrelevant.

As far as I'm aware, the only people concerned with whether it's called marriage or not are the religious that feel that they deserve the legal benefits of marriage and the right to exclude who they want based on their beliefs. Why should it not be called a marriage?

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by CWrite78

Originally Posted by Tony Montana

The end of the world coming and my city the proof.

you should end your life already, if not, you're going to die together with the homosexuals and the rest of us that support them.

I don't know what's stopping people like him from moving to less liberal places like Alabama and Iran. You don't have to stay in NYC.

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by CWrite78

Originally Posted by Tony Montana

The end of the world coming and my city the proof.

you should end your life already, if not, you're going to die together with the homosexuals and the rest of us that support them.

I don't know what's stopping people like him from moving to less liberal places like Alabama and Iran. You don't have to stay in NYC.

 

[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 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 AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by CWrite78

Originally Posted by Tony Montana

The end of the world coming and my city the proof.

you should end your life already, if not, you're going to die together with the homosexuals and the rest of us that support them.

I don't know what's stopping people like him from moving to less liberal places like Alabama and Iran. You don't have to stay in NYC.

here's the irony... i live in alabama.

so you'd basically be sending him from one den of sin into another, lol....

 

[timcity2000]

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by CWrite78

Originally Posted by Tony Montana

The end of the world coming and my city the proof.

you should end your life already, if not, you're going to die together with the homosexuals and the rest of us that support them.

I don't know what's stopping people like him from moving to less liberal places like Alabama and Iran. You don't have to stay in NYC.

here's the irony... i live in alabama.

so you'd basically be sending him from one den of sin into another, lol....

 

[ilpadrino9]

Originally Posted by So Nyuh Shi Dae

Originally Posted by ilpadrino9

Originally Posted by So Nyuh Shi Dae

They are being denied the right to marry someone of the same sex which is discrimination based on the fact that they are a same sex couple. The law, as it stands now, explicitly states that marriage is between and man and a woman which discriminates against marriage between a man and another man and marriage between a woman and another woman. You're trying to compare one situation where only one specific group is denied the same right that is granted to everyone else and two others situations where no one is granted that right. That is why they are separate issues and also why your argument is not valid.

No one is (was) granted the right to marry the same sex and only a specific group (polygamists, those who wish to marry a relative) are denied the right (now that gay marriage is legal) that is granted to everyone else (the right to marry the person of their choice). 

The issue isn't the right to marry the person of your choice. It's having equal rights. Heterosexual couples can get married, homosexual couples can enter into civil unions. It is not considered a marriage because they are a homosexual couple. That is the issue.

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. 

 

[ilpadrino9]

Originally Posted by So Nyuh Shi Dae

Originally Posted by ilpadrino9

Originally Posted by So Nyuh Shi Dae

They are being denied the right to marry someone of the same sex which is discrimination based on the fact that they are a same sex couple. The law, as it stands now, explicitly states that marriage is between and man and a woman which discriminates against marriage between a man and another man and marriage between a woman and another woman. You're trying to compare one situation where only one specific group is denied the same right that is granted to everyone else and two others situations where no one is granted that right. That is why they are separate issues and also why your argument is not valid.

No one is (was) granted the right to marry the same sex and only a specific group (polygamists, those who wish to marry a relative) are denied the right (now that gay marriage is legal) that is granted to everyone else (the right to marry the person of their choice). 

The issue isn't the right to marry the person of your choice. It's having equal rights. Heterosexual couples can get married, homosexual couples can enter into civil unions. It is not considered a marriage because they are a homosexual couple. That is the issue.

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. 

 

[hop]

Originally Posted by TimCity2000

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by CWrite78


you should end your life already, if not, you're going to die together with the homosexuals and the rest of us that support them.

I don't know what's stopping people like him from moving to less liberal places like Alabama and Iran. You don't have to stay in NYC.

here's the irony... i live in alabama.

so you'd basically be sending him from one den of sin into another, lol....

Your in Alabama? 

Whats that like?

 

[hop]

Originally Posted by TimCity2000

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by CWrite78


you should end your life already, if not, you're going to die together with the homosexuals and the rest of us that support them.

I don't know what's stopping people like him from moving to less liberal places like Alabama and Iran. You don't have to stay in NYC.

here's the irony... i live in alabama.

so you'd basically be sending him from one den of sin into another, lol....

Your in Alabama? 

Whats that like?

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by TimCity2000

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by CWrite78


you should end your life already, if not, you're going to die together with the homosexuals and the rest of us that support them.

I don't know what's stopping people like him from moving to less liberal places like Alabama and Iran. You don't have to stay in NYC.

here's the irony... i live in alabama.

so you'd basically be sending him from one den of sin into another, lol....

The sanctuaries in America for intolerant people are getting smaller.

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by TimCity2000

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by CWrite78


you should end your life already, if not, you're going to die together with the homosexuals and the rest of us that support them.

I don't know what's stopping people like him from moving to less liberal places like Alabama and Iran. You don't have to stay in NYC.

here's the irony... i live in alabama.

so you'd basically be sending him from one den of sin into another, lol....

The sanctuaries in America for intolerant people are getting smaller.