NationStates Jolt Archive

"Paterson Set to Introduce Gay Marriage Bill on Thursday"

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Paterson-To-Introduce-Gay-Marriage-Bill-on-Thursday.html

"Gov. David Paterson is expected to introduce legislation Thursday to legalize same-sex marriage, even though Senate Democrats say they don’t have enough guaranteed votes to ensure the bill’s passage."

So - good thing, bad judgement?

Political stunt?

Riding the coat-tails of recent success?

I don't think he's going to get the votes he needs, which means no actual vote. That makes it look a lot like a cynical political 'gesture' to try to look 'progessive'.

I'd like to know who votes against it so I can avoid being in the next bathroom stall to one of them. ;)

I'd like to know who votes against it so I can avoid being in the next bathroom stall to one of them. ;)

http://www.norelpref.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/apg_craig_bathroom2_071004_ms_ap.jpg

Winner.

I'd like to know who votes against it so I can avoid being in the next bathroom stall to one of them. ;)

You can't guarantee that someone who vocally and publically opposes the right for people to marry the people they love... is going to try to slip you dirty cash for secret gay shame.

'Bout time. And I have hopes that NYC is actually intelligent enough to pass it.

You can't guarantee that someone who vocally and publically opposes the right for people to marry the people they love... is going to try to slip you dirty cash for secret gay shame.

I'm profiling. ;)

Good thing. I'm rooting for NY. I know they'll do it eventually.

Considering Ive read Senate Democrats say it wont pass, Id say its actually a good call.


The backlash of it failing could actually help the cause.

Good on them. I hope it passes!

Good on them. I hope it passes!

Strangely, I hope it fails. Well - it won't fail, because they simply won't table it for a vote.

As Trve said - the backlash might actually be more profitable. Squeaking by with a vote isn't convincing. A backlash landslide says you mean it.

It's New York.

As far as its concerned I don't live there, and therefore it is not my problem.

If all political stunts were along the lines of this one, I wouldn't mind them so much.

such eagerness to commit - the poor deluded fools :(

On the other hand, it would hilarious to see this pass just we can change New York's state flag:

http://flagspot.net/images/f/ficomord.gif

Or maybe Paterson's trying to bait the Mormons into burning more of their non-taxable assets into another Prop-8 style campaign.

:D

It's New York.

As far as its concerned I don't live there, and therefore it is not my problem.

I know, you just leave everything to me, and then look all surprised when I setup a dictatorship.

Cynicism at its worst.

Paterson is simply trying to shore up his poll numbers ahead of the gubernatorial election next year - at the moment, he looks to be dumped in the primaries for Cuomo.

Gauthier, much as I enjoy being in your sig, 14 lines is WAY too long. Trim it to 8 lines, please.

I'm not GLBT so it's not my problem, however I do hope it passes as legal rights should be extended to all citizens, regardless of any condition. That said, I would not necessarily encourage the exercise of that right in a religious community or a building owned and operated by said community. Justice of the peace, maybe...

One thing I am wondering (mods- if this looks like a threadjack to you, I will kindly start another thread), is when other marriage situations will be legalized, namely polygamy in all its forms (polygyny, polyandry, and complex marriage)? However pederasty/pedophilia should remain ILLEGAL!

I'm not GLBT so it's not my problem, however I do hope it passes as legal rights should be extended to all citizens, regardless of any condition. That said, I would not necessarily encourage the exercise of that right in a religious community or a building owned and operated by said community. Justice of the peace, maybe...

One thing I am wondering (mods- if this looks like a threadjack to you, I will kindly start another thread), is when other marriage situations will be legalized, namely polygamy in all its forms (polygyny, polyandry, and complex marriage)? However pederasty/pedophilia should remain ILLEGAL!

I don't have a problem with any voluntary union entered into by two (or more) adult, human, consenting parties.

And since the Republicans are all about getting the government out of our wallet, I wonder why they don't take at least a vaguely similar stance? Or is there a double standard here?

I don't have a problem with any voluntary union entered into by two (or more) adult, human, consenting parties.

And since the Republicans are all about getting the government out of our wallet, I wonder why they don't take at least a vaguely similar stance? Or is there a double standard here?
It wouldn't have sold as well.

Typical American pro forma BS. It is meaningless. You can put lipstick on a pig -- and it will still be a pig. All of these events so far have been nothing more than cultural political correctness. Every political entity in the USA has sufficient civil mechanisms in place (e.g. durable POA, Medical POA, contract law et al) to insure any couple of any nature to establish whatever "rights" suddenly matter. It is all a load of old cobblers.

You'd swear this guy were blind.

I don't know we have brand new cardinal. We have tons of very powerful churches. It is hard to say if it will go over. If it should happen anywhere possibly it should happen here. We do have a huge LBGT population. Speaking from a purely legalistic point of view.

I don't know we have brand new cardinal. We have tons of very powerful churches. It is hard to say if it will go over. If it should happen anywhere possibly it should happen here. We do have a huge LBGT population. Speaking from a purely legalistic point of view.

I don't even know why religion butts into a discussion that has nothing whatsoever to do with it. The last time I checked, and correct me if I'm wrong, the United States was not a theocracy.

I don't even know why religion butts into a discussion that has nothing whatsoever to do with it. The last time I checked, and correct me if I'm wrong, the United States was not a theocracy.
That's what we wanted you to think.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/04/13/2009-04-13_state_senate_close_to_vote_for_gay_nups.html

Gay marriage vote in New York state Senate near after Iowa, Vermont?
By David Saltonstall
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Monday, April 13th 2009, 4:00 AM

Gay marriage advocates believe recent victories in Iowa and Vermont could provide the push needed to put New York on the gay wedding map, possibly by June.

Advocates insist they are close to lining up the 32 votes needed in the state Senate - long the biggest barrier - to pass a same-sex bill similar to one already approved by the Assembly in 2007.

"We are closer than many people think, and we are not there yet," said Alan Van Capelle, head of Empire State Pride Agenda.

Senate insiders put the number of "yes" votes at about 27 or 28 and paint a far bleaker picture.

Already, a tiff has broken out between Gov. Paterson - who called last week for an up-or-down vote on gay marriage, regardless of whether victory is assured - and Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith, who wants to wait until it's a sure thing.

In the meantime, opponents are rallying their forces, with one group, the National Organization for Marriage, unleashing a $1.5million ad campaign in New York and other states considering gay marriage.


Could be a storm brewing. The legislation may be short lived if it ever gets through. Escalation it is imminent.

That's what we wanted you to think.

If this country actually does become a theocracy, it'll be over my dead body. Theocracies tend to strip civil rights away from anyone that doesn't fit their bill of a model {insert practitioner's demonym here} and (here's where I make it relevant) LGBT couples tend to wind up classified second- or third-class citizen.

If this country actually does become a theocracy, it'll be over my dead body. Theocracies tend to strip civil rights away from anyone that doesn't fit their bill of a model {insert practitioner's demonym here} and (here's where I make it relevant) LGBT couples tend to wind up classified second- or third-class citizen.

The rational people will have time while they decide whether to execute the gays or the Muslims first to come up with a way to stop them.

The rational people will have time while they decide whether to execute the gays or the Muslims first to come up with a way to stop them.

Muslims? I thought America's theocrat problem came from the crazies in the Christian Dominionist movement.

Muslims? I thought America's theocrat problem came from the crazies in the Christian Dominionist movement.

Meant to say "While the Christian Dominionists try to make up their mind on whether to execute the gays or the Muslims first, the rational people will have time to come up with a plan to stop them".

:D

Meant to say "While the Christian Dominionists try to make up their mind on whether to execute the gays or the Muslims first, the rational people will have time to come up with a plan to stop them".

:D

Ah. Thanks for the clarification. :)

i'm for gay marriage,but if Congress won't pass it,my vote won't matter,anyway.

i'm for gay marriage,but if Congress won't pass it,my vote won't matter,anyway.
Your vote is useful as a census.

Why do people always act like good ideas and political stunts are mutually exclusive? If gay rights are furthered by Patterson's obvious attempt to shore up his godawful polling...well, hell, pander away.

Typical American pro forma BS. It is meaningless. You can put lipstick on a pig -- and it will still be a pig. All of these events so far have been nothing more than cultural political correctness. Every political entity in the USA has sufficient civil mechanisms in place (e.g. durable POA, Medical POA, contract law et al) to insure any couple of any nature to establish whatever "rights" suddenly matter. It is all a load of old cobblers.
Really? Every single "political entity" in the US? Well, hell, damn, you must have one hell of a reference source that shows you all the possible laws and regulations of every state and the federal government that, put all together, will allow everyone to gain all of the over 1000 privileges, rights, and authorities accessible to people via marriage. That sounds like a useful reference. I would appreciate a link.

Also, what do old cobblers have to do with this? If there is one thing I think all people can agree on, it's that marriage rights have nothing to do with shoes -- unless you're counting that some people tie old shoes to the back of the married couple's car for luck on their wedding day. If so, I would point out that, currently, in most US states, gay people can't do that, on account of they don't get wedding days.

Why do people always act like good ideas and political stunts are mutually exclusive? If gay rights are furthered by Patterson's obvious attempt to shore up his godawful polling...well, hell, pander away.

I agree and some alos might argue that he was not even elected, he was appointed after the fall of Spitzer. I think this will be a big enough issue that it should come up in elections. Even if get voted down they will scream Tyranny of the Majority and the courts will eventually vote it down anyway, so let's just cut to the chase please.


I like that phrase for some reason Tyranny of the Majority

You'd swear this guy were blind.

If you are speaking of Governor Patterson... he is, btw. How he was portrayed on SNL was kinda disrespectful, if they wanted to make jokes it would have been better to say something to the effect that 'at last we have an honest politician, now if only we can find one who'll keep it in his pants...' or 'unlike the Clintons, First Lady Patterson proved women cannot always keep their pantsuits on...' both are crude, but they are true and do not demean the blind community.

I agree and some alos might argue that he was not even elected, he was appointed after the fall of Spitzer. I think this will be a big enough issue that it should come up in elections. Even if get voted down they will scream Tyranny of the Majority and the courts will eventually vote it down anyway, so let's just cut to the chase please.


I like that phrase for some reason Tyranny of the Majority

You like it, because you're the majority. That would be my guess.

Or maybe Paterson's trying to bait the Mormons into burning more of their non-taxable assets into another Prop-8 style campaign.

:D

...

That's genius!

One thing I am wondering (mods- if this looks like a threadjack to you, I will kindly start another thread), is when other marriage situations will be legalized, namely polygamy in all its forms (polygyny, polyandry, and complex marriage)?

No time soon.

In order to become accepted, a thing has to be seen as commonplace, as well as harmless.

That will push it past the majority, and the minority that opposes even that, will eventually fade, but the law will have changed.

It happened with 'ethnic' marriage, it's happening with gay marriage. You're probably talking about next century's battle.

You like it, because you're the majority. That would be my guess.

I plan to stay on their good side, as well. ;)

If things really get bad I figure I can just move to Texas or Arizona.

If you are speaking of Governor Patterson... he is, btw. How he was portrayed on SNL was kinda disrespectful, if they wanted to make jokes it would have been better to say something to the effect that 'at last we have an honest politician, now if only we can find one who'll keep it in his pants...' or 'unlike the Clintons, First Lady Patterson proved women cannot always keep their pantsuits on...' both are crude, but they are true and do not demean the blind community.

I think most New Yorker kind of like him and do in fact respect him. I think he is in a really tough position with the budget, he likely to take some flak over the coming months.

I plan to stay on their good side, as well. ;)

If things really get bad I figure I can just move to Texas or Arizona.

Utah, maybe.

This isn't a state by state phenomenon. This will stand or fall nationally... and indications are, it will stand. So - even Utah will come in line, eventually.

How's Mexico grab you?

Utah, maybe.

This isn't a state by state phenomenon. This will stand or fall nationally... and indications are, it will stand. So - even Utah will come in line, eventually.

How's Mexico grab you?

Utah will be a good spot as well. Mexico you can't drink the water. It will be really funny though. All those people trying to sneak over to our side and we will all be sneaking the other way.

Maybe South America...

Utah will be a good spot as well. Mexico you can't drink the water. It will be really funny though. All those people trying to sneak over to our side and we will all be sneaking the other way.

Maybe South America...

There's not going to be a mass exodus... and Christians aren't going to shift en masse to anywhere else in the US, either.

We know this, because they haven't... and because those who are watching carefully have already seen the writing on the wall. There will be nowhere to 'hide' and let their hate fester, and they're not going to be willing to leave the country over it, no matter what their religion says.

Sure, there might be one or two. But, for the most part, the gay marriage argument is over, and it's a repeat of the ethnic marriage argument. The only question is going to be how long it's opponents lumber around before they realise they are dead.

There's not going to be a mass exodus... and Christians aren't going to shift en masse to anywhere else in the US, either.

We know this, because they haven't... and because those who are watching carefully have already seen the writing on the wall. There will be nowhere to 'hide' and let their hate fester, and they're not going to be willing to leave the country over it, no matter what their religion says.

Sure, there might be one or two. But, for the most part, the gay marriage argument is over, and it's a repeat of the ethnic marriage argument. The only question is going to be how long it's opponents lumber around before they realise they are dead.


I don't know if Alabama is any indication this could be a long one. I think they scan through their law books purposely looking for things to annoy the democrats. It works too because sure enough within a few weeks we have yet another court case. Whether it is Christian License Plates or the 10 commandments in State Capitol.

I also think the Southern States in general look for issues to thumb their noses at the rest of the country. This could be that sort of issue.

I don't know if Alabama is any indication this could be a long one. I think they scan through their law books purposely looking for things to annoy the democrats. It works too because sure enough within a few weeks we have yet another court case. Whether it is Christian License Plates or the 10 commandments in State Capitol.

I also think the Southern States in general look for issues to thumb their noses at the rest of the country. This could be that sort of issue.

Once it hits the US Supreme Court, we'll see.

I don't even know why religion butts into a discussion that has nothing whatsoever to do with it. The last time I checked, and correct me if I'm wrong, the United States was not a theocracy.

No but members of the Church are also citizens of the country and like you also have the right to express their opinion and views and also like you have the right to get their beliefs turned into law.

No but members of the Church are also citizens of the country and like you also have the right to express their opinion and views and also like you have the right to get their beliefs turned into law.

I don't think the religious majority should be whining too much about 'rights', right now.

I don't think the religious majority should be whining too much about 'rights', right now.

Who said anything about whinging about rights?

I don't know if Alabama is any indication this could be a long one. I think they scan through their law books purposely looking for things to annoy the democrats. It works too because sure enough within a few weeks we have yet another court case. Whether it is Christian License Plates or the 10 commandments in State Capitol.

I also think the Southern States in general look for issues to thumb their noses at the rest of the country. This could be that sort of issue.

Both aspects are true, and there will probably be holdouts, no doubt.

But gay marriage is coming, whether the would-be-theocrats like it or not.

Who said anything about whinging about rights?

They 'have the right' to express their opinions. They 'have the right' to have their beliefs turned into law.

The theocratic would-be lawmaker elements aren't the people being deprived of rights. And that's probably not a fight it would be wise to begin.

Both aspects are true, and there will probably be holdouts, no doubt.

But gay marriage is coming, whether the would-be-theocrats like it or not.

We have 20 States with constitutional amendments banning it so far. We are not talking slim majorities we are talking 80% or better. They also happen to be Red States mostly.

They 'have the right' to express their opinions. They 'have the right' to have their beliefs turned into law.

The theocratic would-be lawmaker elements aren't the people being deprived of rights. And that's probably not a fight it would be wise to begin.

So are you saying as citizens of the US they don't havethese rights just like Milks? Or that they shouldn't be allowed to have these rights?

It would be wise not to start a fight that isn't there.

Who are you by the way? Are you a puppet or a new poster? Did you just start posting?

We have 20 States with constitutional amendments banning it so far. We are not talking slim majorities we are talking 80% or better. They also happen to be Red States mostly.

There is nothing 'constitutional' about taking rights away from people.

Which is why all those state amendments are great big wastes of time... because sooner or later, Big Brother Federal is going to come round their houses and straighten them all out.

Look to your history books. Gay marriage will come, and states can go smiling and making it easy, or they can drag their feet and still go in the end.

So are you saying as citizens of the US they don't havethese rights just like Milks? Or that they shouldn't be allowed to have these rights?


I'm saying that - if I were the group making it possible to deprive another group of rights, I'd be keeping pretty damn quiet about my own 'rights'.

I'm saying that - if I were the group making it possible to deprive another group of rights, I'd be keeping pretty damn quiet about my own 'rights'.

Right so you are agreeing that it had nothing to do with my first post then and no one on here has been whinging about their rights.

Right so you are agreeing that it had nothing to do with my first post then and no one on here has been whinging about their rights.

Here's what you said: "No but members of the Church are also citizens of the country and like you also have the right to express their opinion and views and also like you have the right to get their beliefs turned into law".

Now, ignoring the fact that there's no 'right' to have your beliefs encoded in law, the rest of it is not something that's been denied.

The question would be, why, then - make a big deal about it?

If those rights aren't being infringed... you're just wasting pixels. If they are... well, it's hard to be too sympathetic.

Here's what you said: "No but members of the Church are also citizens of the country and like you also have the right to express their opinion and views and also like you have the right to get their beliefs turned into law".

Now, ignoring the fact that there's no 'right' to have your beliefs encoded in law, the rest of it is not something that's been denied.

The question would be, why, then - make a big deal about it?

Milks made a statement wanting to know why the church has to get in discussions about this, I replied because church members are also citizens of the US and as such also get the same rights as other citizens of the US. As for people attempting to get their beliefs into law yes they do, they can vote for a representative who also holds similar beliefs and can then attempt to get legislation passed into law, they can protest current representatives to change their mind on issues and pass legislation. If for example it is your belief that gays should be allowed to marry than you can get that belief into law if you believe that there should be a restriction on the types of cars that learners should be allowed to drive you can attempt to get that belief into law. If you believe that all necessary services should be under complete control of the government you can attempt to get that into law.

If those rights aren't being infringed... you're just wasting pixels. If they are... well, it's hard to be too sympathetic.

If they are well then we see another hypocrite in action. If they aren't well I am just telling Milks why members of the church should be allowed to speak out against issues.

There is nothing 'constitutional' about taking rights away from people.

Which is why all those state amendments are great big wastes of time... because sooner or later, Big Brother Federal is going to come round their houses and straighten them all out.

Look to your history books. Gay marriage will come, and states can go smiling and making it easy, or they can drag their feet and still go in the end.

I agree with that it doesn't seem to matter what the voters think. So I suppose if we wanted the issue to go away we would put it before the Supreme Court. A president that would likely be very unpopular in the South and it may even be a galvanizing issue that might cause you not to get elected in the first place.

It will definatly be interesting to watch. I see the 6 New England states all having legal gay marriage within the next 3 years (three already have it legal, two of which defeated measures to amend their constitutions. Two others have laws being introduced, leaving only Maine, which I don't see as much of a problem). I recall reading on fivethirtyeight.com that banning gay marriage loses steam at about 2% per year. By their calculations, the following states would have enough people vote against a gay marriage ban in 2009:
2009 (now)
Vermont
New Hampshire
Massachusetts
Maine
Rhode Island
Connecticut
Nevada*
Washington
Alaska*
New York
Oregon*

Now, this doesn't mean that these states have enough votes to legalize gay marriage...just enough to not ban it. As such, it will be interesting to see where New York actually falls. Failure could actually be more beneficial in the long run...but I don't know that it definatly would.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/will-iowans-uphold-gay-marriage.html

If they are well then we see another hypocrite in action. If they aren't well I am just telling Milks why members of the church should be allowed to speak out against issues.

Allowed wasn't really the point, though... at least, it looked like the point was - why do they HAVE TO get involved.

I agree with that it doesn't seem to matter what the voters think.

That's not strictly true. It just shouldn't matter MORE than equality of fundamental rights.

If 99% of the population voted to exterminate all the Jews in America, for example, that doesn't mean it should be allowed.

New Jersey is pretty much already, they allow Civil Unions which is essentially the same thing. Funny they chose Mississippi as being the last hold out, I would have gone with Alabama. Also I would push Georgia up and Texas down but who knows.

That's not strictly true. It just shouldn't matter MORE than equality of fundamental rights.

If 99% of the population voted to exterminate all the Jews in America, for example, that doesn't mean it should be allowed.

I agree with you on that issue. This issue more than most seem to be a polarizing issue. So we end up with half the country doing one thing and half doing another. Which okay I suppose the voters get their say, I doubt it will last long though.

If 99% of the population voted to exterminate all the Jews in America, for example, that doesn't mean it should be allowed.
No, it just means that it would be allowed.

Allowed wasn't really the point, though... at least, it looked like the point was - why do they HAVE TO get involved.

Because they can, should I repeat my post?

Why do you have to get involved.

No time soon.

In order to become accepted, a thing has to be seen as commonplace, as well as harmless.

That will push it past the majority, and the minority that opposes even that, will eventually fade, but the law will have changed.

It happened with 'ethnic' marriage, it's happening with gay marriage. You're probably talking about next century's battle.

I guess your right:( 'Ethnic' marriage and well organized plural marriage arrangements are things that I have absolutely no problem with (especially since complex marriage allows me to coin new vocab to describe familial relationships:p). Personally, GLBT stuff kinda makes me feel queasy, no offense to those of that orientation on this board, but I'll accept as a way of the world; not to be encouraged but not necessarily prohibited though either nor worthy of the use of force for that matter.

Personally, GLBT stuff kinda makes me feel queasy, no offense to those of that orientation on this board, but I'll accept as a way of the world; not to be encouraged but not necessarily prohibited though either nor worthy of the use of force for that matter.
The only way I can think of to encourage homosexuality in persons already born is through genetic engineering, unless you were going to attempt to further the military's gay bomb.

(edit: I am not saying that this should be done. I am pointing out the nonsensicality of stating that homosexuality should not be promoted. Promoting or not promoting orientation is nonsensical. Orientation is biological, not ideological.)

The only way I can think of to encourage homosexuality in persons already born is through genetic engineering, unless you were going to attempt to further the military's gay bomb.

That would be an idea for a black comedy. Some secret military project tries to develop a zombie virus, but due to some accident or miscalculation it turns the infected people gay instead, and it spreads quickly after breaching containment... and all the religious fundamentalist groups like FOTF start screaming how they were right all along while the world goes gay 69 Days Later.

I hope this passes.

Is it likely to pass? I hope it does.

That would be an idea for a black comedy. Some secret military project tries to develop a zombie virus, but due to some accident or miscalculation it turns the infected people gay instead, and it spreads quickly after breaching containment...
Like the Gay Bomb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_bomb)?

Like the Gay Bomb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_bomb)?

I've read about that before, hillarious.

Typical American pro forma BS. It is meaningless. You can put lipstick on a pig -- and it will still be a pig. All of these events so far have been nothing more than cultural political correctness. Every political entity in the USA has sufficient civil mechanisms in place (e.g. durable POA, Medical POA, contract law et al) to insure any couple of any nature to establish whatever "rights" suddenly matter. It is all a load of old cobblers.

Doesn't matter.

If you are attracted to someone of the opposite biological sex, you can marry them and get a massive package of rights in one fell swoop - call it a bulk deal. But if they are of the same biological sex, you can't.

That's discrimination, simple, clear, and illegal.

The only way I can think of to encourage homosexuality in persons already born is through genetic engineering, unless you were going to attempt to further the military's gay bomb.

Why would you want ti encourage homosexuality in a person? Or discourage it for that matter?

That would be an idea for a black comedy. Some secret military project tries to develop a zombie virus, but due to some accident or miscalculation it turns the infected people gay instead, and it spreads quickly after breaching containment... and all the religious fundamentalist groups like FOTF start screaming how they were right all along while the world goes gay 69 Days Later.

Coming to a cinema near you.

If something like this comes out I would be asking for royalties.

It maybe a "stunt" to get it onto the agenda, but I imagine that if any state should enact a law - outside California that is...it should be NY

At this point I'm just interested in seeing which pathetic states are the holdouts that are left denying gay marriage rights when the Supreme Court or legislature finally rule/legislate that gay citizens cannot be denied equal marriage rights.

Because, let's face it, it's going to happen. Just like it happened with interracial marriage. All that will matter, in the end, is whether your state will go down in history as one of the homophobic dead-end states.

At this point I'm just interested in seeing which pathetic states are the holdouts that are left denying gay marriage rights when the Supreme Court or legislature finally rule/legislate that gay citizens cannot be denied equal marriage rights.

Because, let's face it, it's going to happen. Just like it happened with interracial marriage. All that will matter, in the end, is whether your state will go down in history as one of the homophobic dead-end states.

But how big a deal will be made out of that? IN say 50 years after the event.

It maybe a "stunt" to get it onto the agenda, but I imagine that if any state should enact a law - outside California that is...it should be NY

Despite what some posters here seem to feel NYS =/= NYC

Just like how California isn't the same as San Fran. (you know, where they actually changed their constitution to ban gay marriage)

That said, until very recently the legislature was controlled by the republicans. Really theres no reason to think NY is particularly liberal. If we were to cut out NYC, we'd be a "Red" state every year and hell, half of them only vote for the dems cause they're immigrants.

I agree and some also might argue that he was not even elected, he was appointed after the fall of Spitzer.

We did elect him - as our lieutenant governor. You're thinking of a situation like Gerald Ford - he was appointed as VP after Agnew resigned and got promoted after Nixon resigned. This wasn't the case with Paterson.

If they are well then we see another hypocrite in action. If they aren't well I am just telling Milks why members of the church should be allowed to speak out against issues.

Their claim is that allowing same-sex couples access to 1138 specific federal rights under the law (source: GAO study from 2003) will somehow make their marriages under religion mean less. But here's the thing: A civil marriage is not a religious marriage. The ones who are for denying a same-sex couple 1138 specific federal rights (source: GAO study, 2003) and more at the state level are either fringe lunatics or (as Proposition 8 showed) duped by the fringe lunatics.

Doesn't matter.

If you are attracted to someone of the opposite biological sex, you can marry them and get a massive package of rights in one fell swoop - call it a bulk deal. But if they are of the same biological sex, you can't.

That's discrimination, simple, clear, and illegal.

I'm surprised no one's tried going to the Supreme Court with this, arguing that it's a violation of the 14th Amendment - it is, after all, denying due process under the law to people who have done nothing wrong.

Their claim is that allowing same-sex couples access to 1138 specific federal rights under the law (source: GAO study from 2003) will somehow make their marriages under religion mean less. But here's the thing: A civil marriage is not a religious marriage. The ones who are for denying a same-sex couple 1138 specific federal rights (source: GAO study, 2003) and more at the state level are either fringe lunatics or (as Proposition 8 showed) duped by the fringe lunatics.

Indeed and they are allowed as citizens of the US to be able to express their views (however right or wrong), which is why they do enter these sort of debates it challenges their opinions and so they enter.

I'm surprised no one's tried going to the Supreme Court with this, arguing that it's a violation of the 14th Amendment - it is, after all, denying due process under the law to people who have done nothing wrong.

It's also a violation of the first.

I'm surprised no one's tried going to the Supreme Court with this, arguing that it's a violation of the 14th Amendment - it is, after all, denying due process under the law to people who have done nothing wrong.

The biggest reason is, as far as I am aware, a fear that the current court might rule against same-sex marriage. Which would be problematic, to say the least.

I'm gay, I have a boyfriend who i love dearly, and I would love to get married.

I agree and some alos might argue that he was not even elected, he was appointed after the fall of Spitzer.

Which would be a stupid argument, since he was in fact elected, mind you it was as Lt. Governor, but one of the jobs of a Lt Governor is to take over as Governor if for some reason the Governor has to step down.

I'm gay, I have a boyfriend who i love dearly, and I would love to get married.

That's awesome. I wish the two of you the best of luck, and I want you to know that I support your rights to do just that.

I'm gay, I have a boyfriend who i love dearly, and I would love to get married.
And here I am in a heterosexual relationship, and I do not want to get married, yet I'm allowed to get married and you're not. Which, in addition to being horribly unfair, is particularly poetic because by living in sin and NOT wanting to get married I am considered to be just as "wicked" as you and your boyfriend are for WANTING to get married.

Question: Have any courts ruled against gay marriage?

Despite what some posters here seem to feel NYS =/= NYC

Just like how California isn't the same as San Fran. (you know, where they actually changed their constitution to ban gay marriage)

That said, until very recently the legislature was controlled by the republicans. Really theres no reason to think NY is particularly liberal. If we were to cut out NYC, we'd be a "Red" state every year and hell, half of them only vote for the dems cause they're immigrants.

Not entirely and certainly not if you were to run the numbers based on population, where you'll find most of those blue counties: http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/map.html

And since when will this be a strict party line vote? I know Republicans who aren't opposed to gay marrage. And I'm pretty sure that you'll find NYC Democrats opposed to it.. Rubin Diaz, for one?

As just one upstate NY heterosexual woman, I certainly hope my state finally does what it should and allows gay marriage, and I've let my legislators know this.

Question: Have any courts ruled against gay marriage?

Not to my knowledge.

Milks made a statement wanting to know why the church has to get in discussions about this, I replied because church members are also citizens of the US and as such also get the same rights as other citizens of the US.

If course, none of those rights include the ability to see one's religion codified into law.

Anyone can fight for a law they believe should exist. However, sometimes, getting such a law into place infringes upon the rights of others. Those who fight to ban gay marriage because of their religion are infringing on the 1st amendment rights of others by essentially trying to set up their own religious views as law. They are also infringing upon the right to equal protection enshrined in the 14th Amendment.

Now, if they can come up with a purely secular reason that same-sex couples should have less protections than their opposite-sex counterparts...

If course, none of those rights include the ability to see one's religion codified into law.

Anyone can fight for a law they believe should exist. However, sometimes, getting such a law into place infringes upon the rights of others. Those who fight to ban gay marriage because of their religion are infringing on the 1st amendment rights of others by essentially trying to set up their own religious views as law. They are also infringing upon the right to equal protection enshrined in the 14th Amendment.

Now, if they can come up with a purely secular reason that same-sex couples should have less protections than their opposite-sex counterparts...
I suppose "It's icky and we don't like it" could be considered purely secular, as long as they leave off the part about "because Jesus said so somewhere once, we think."

But that wouldn't really give more weight to their position

So I suppose if we wanted the issue to go away we would put it before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court isn't going to touch this one until they absolutely have to. They'll keep finding reasons not to rule on any cases that come their way as long as possible.

And even when they do eventually rule on it, that doesn't mean the fight will be over. If they rule in favor of equality, the far right-wing will keep on fighting it. It'll be the next issue that they'll hope to stack the courts against so that they can eventually get it overturned. And, if they don't, people who favor equality aren't suddenly gonna throw up their hands and decide it isn't worth it anymore.

I'd like to know who votes against it so I can avoid being in the next bathroom stall to one of them. ;)

"Oh, nice shoes. Dolce & Gaybana?"

Also, is your new avatar the "Pie of Sauron"?

Or maybe Paterson's trying to bait the Mormons into burning more of their non-taxable assets into another Prop-8 style campaign.

:D

I like this idea! Bankrupt the opponents, Soviet-style.

And here I am in a heterosexual relationship, and I do not want to get married, yet I'm allowed to get married and you're not. Which, in addition to being horribly unfair, is particularly poetic because by living in sin and NOT wanting to get married I am considered to be just as "wicked" as you and your boyfriend are for WANTING to get married.

Ah, the sweet, sweet logic. It smells like cinnamon.

If course, none of those rights include the ability to see one's religion codified into law.

Anyone can fight for a law they believe should exist. However, sometimes, getting such a law into place infringes upon the rights of others. Those who fight to ban gay marriage because of their religion are infringing on the 1st amendment rights of others by essentially trying to set up their own religious views as law. They are also infringing upon the right to equal protection enshrined in the 14th Amendment.

Now, if they can come up with a purely secular reason that same-sex couples should have less protections than their opposite-sex counterparts...

They can't. I've asked this question probably a hundred times over the last few years, and nobody can answer it even remotely convincingly. That question or this one: how does a gay marriage in any way affect yours?

I've never received a decent answer to either question.

Question: Have any courts ruled against gay marriage?

What do you mean by "against"?

Several state courts have ruled against overturning same-sex marriage bans; Maryland, I know, and others too. No court in the US has overturned a law permitting same-sex marriage (not that there have been any opportunities), and I can't conceive of a legal basis for doing so.

The Supreme Court isn't going to touch this one until they absolutely have to. They'll keep finding reasons not to rule on any cases that come their way as long as possible.

They have not even had any opportunities to evade yet, because the people behind same-sex marriage litigation don't want to bring it to the federal level.

I agree with the right for gay couples to marry, especially in a civil sense. We are all equal.

I would vehemently oppose it if my church agreed to let gay couples marry because I do not believe that in the eyes of God gay couples are equal to straight ones.

But the bottom line is that my religious beliefs should not affect the civil rights of a gay citizen.

But how big a deal will be made out of that? IN say 50 years after the event.

States that held out during the civil rights movement of the 60's are still seen as being backwards and racist. My guess is that the same thing will happen with homophobic hold-out states.

My nation has no interest in civil freedoms whatsoever.

However, we encourage gay marriage because it cuts down on cruising the gay night spots and thereby cuts down on the spread of AIDS and other noxious diseases.

It's a simple matter of public health.

I suppose "It's icky and we don't like it" could be considered purely secular, as long as they leave off the part about "because Jesus said so somewhere once, we think."

But that wouldn't really give more weight to their position

I suppose I should have added the caveat that the secular reason has to actually be a compelling enough government interest to justify denying equal protection. =)


They have not even had any opportunities to evade yet, because the people behind same-sex marriage litigation don't want to bring it to the federal level.

I'm pretty sure there's been at least one. There was a challenge to DOMA - I believe - from a Canadian couple who had moved to the US. I remember that the USSC evaded it by claiming that the petitioners had no standing with which to challenge the law or something like that. I'll see if I can find it.

<SNIP>
This isn't RP

Here's hoping it passes, and that churches go bankrupt trying, fruitlessly, to get it banned.

"

They can't. I've asked this question probably a hundred times over the last few years, and nobody can answer it even remotely convincingly. That question or this one: how does a gay marriage in any way affect yours?

I've never received a decent answer to either question.


You are perfe tly right, there is no current legal basis for the case against gay marriage.

But when this is against Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and many other major faiths in the US, this makes most people against the bill due to it being a sin by religion.

And that's why it is hard to do this. When most of congress is against a bill because of religion or other reasons, it just simply won't work,

As more and more people become atheist, more and more support for gay marriage rights will grow. At this pace, gay marrige will soon be legalized in the United States. No matter how sick or unhealthy it is for it to be legal.

I personally think that it is sick and wrong and should be outlawed. But that's me.

As more and more people become atheist, more and more support for gay marriage rights will grow. At this pace, gay marrige will soon be legalized in the United States. No matter how sick or unhealthy it is for it to be legal.

I don't think atheism really has much to do with it. The numbers of atheists in this country are far, far below those who support equality.

I personally think that it is sick and wrong and should be outlawed. But that's me.

Why?

You are perfe tly right, there is no current legal basis for the case against gay marriage.

But when this is against Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and many other major faiths in the US, this makes most people against the bill due to it being a sin by religion.

And that's why it is hard to do this. When most of congress is against a bill because of religion or other reasons, it just simply won't work,

As more and more people become atheist, more and more support for gay marriage rights will grow. At this pace, gay marrige will soon be legalized in the United States. No matter how sick or unhealthy it is for it to be legal.

I personally think that it is sick and wrong and should be outlawed. But that's me.

I personally think that people thinking gay marriage is sick and wrong, is sick and wrong.

You apparently are unaware that there are many 'religious' people who also support the rights of homosexuals to get married.

I personally think that people thinking gay marriage is sick and wrong, is sick and wrong.

You apparently are unaware that there are many 'religious' people who also support the rights of homosexuals to get married.

No, no it has to be all because of the atheists. You know because every religion is against homosexuality... :rolleyes:

No, no it has to be all because of the atheists. You know because every religion is against homosexuality... :rolleyes:

And because every religious person thinks exactly the same way and agrees 100% with their respective faith's edicts. *nod *nod

And because every religious person thinks exactly the same way and agrees 100% with their respective faith's edicts. *nod *nod
It's the Holy Hive Mind. *nod *nod *nod

And because every religious person thinks exactly the same way and agrees 100% with their respective faith's edicts. *nod *nod
It's the Holy Hive Mind. *nod *nod *nod

Indeed

There won't be any of that in Maldershia.

There won't be any of that in Maldershia.

That's nice, you'll note we are discussing something that is actually happening in the real world. We really don't give a fuck about about your NS nation, this isn't RP.

Every political entity in the USA has sufficient civil mechanisms in place (e.g. durable POA, Medical POA, contract law et al) to insure any couple of any nature to establish whatever "rights" suddenly matter.
No, not in Michigan. Courts are forbidden to recognize anything "similar" to marriage, language which is vague enough to drive a truck through. It is not clear how many kinds of contracts, which would be valid if entered into by any other persons, become invalid if contracted by two people who love each other, but joint health insurance, for example, has been struck down.

If course, none of those rights include the ability to see one's religion codified into law.

Anyone can fight for a law they believe should exist. However, sometimes, getting such a law into place infringes upon the rights of others. Those who fight to ban gay marriage because of their religion are infringing on the 1st amendment rights of others by essentially trying to set up their own religious views as law. They are also infringing upon the right to equal protection enshrined in the 14th Amendment.

Now, if they can come up with a purely secular reason that same-sex couples should have less protections than their opposite-sex counterparts...

That's true but as you say they are able to push their beliefs into law just like yourself and really how hard is it for people to come up with reasons that don't mention the bible or say it is an affront to their religion against gay marriage. As for the Amendments they can push o also have these changed if it is against the beliefs (remember beliefs aren't always religious in nature)

It's the Holy Hive Mind. *nod *nod *nod

Much like the Secular Hive Mind. Example:

"Good thing. I'm rooting for NY. I know they'll do it eventually."
"Good on them. I hope it passes!"
"I'm not GLBT so it's not my problem, however I do hope it passes"
"I don't have a problem with any voluntary union"
"I don't even know why religion butts into a discussion that has nothing whatsoever to do with it."
"While the Christian Dominionists try to make up their mind on whether to execute the gays"

The last one is pretty disturbing, to say the least. It's one crazy-ass hive if you ask me.

they are able to push their beliefs into law

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

What the hell are you talking about?

Much like the Secular Hive Mind. Example:

"Good thing. I'm rooting for NY. I know they'll do it eventually."
"Good on them. I hope it passes!"
"I'm not GLBT so it's not my problem, however I do hope it passes"
"I don't have a problem with any voluntary union"
"I don't even know why religion butts into a discussion that has nothing whatsoever to do with it."
"While the Christian Dominionists try to make up their mind on whether to execute the gays"

The last one is pretty disturbing, to say the least. It's one crazy-ass hive if you ask me.
You're right. That example of a "hive mind" consisting of 6 individuals who happen to agree with the state of New York (if not necessarily with each other), is completely bogus. Just like all "hive mind" stereotypes. Thus my comment about a Holy Hive Mind ridiculing the other poster's suggestion that "religion" in general is opposed to gay marriage, as if all religious people think alike on the issue.

You're right. That example of a "hive mind" consisting of 6 individuals who happen to agree with the state of New York (if not necessarily with each other), is completely bogus. Just like all "hive mind" stereotypes. Thus my comment about a Holy Hive Mind ridiculing the other poster's suggestion that "religion" in general is opposed to gay marriage, as if all religious people think alike on the issue.

Holy Hive Mind, Batman!

[sorry]

I agree with the right for gay couples to marry, especially in a civil sense. We are all equal.

I would vehemently oppose it if my church agreed to let gay couples marry because I do not believe that in the eyes of God gay couples are equal to straight ones.

But the bottom line is that my religious beliefs should not affect the civil rights of a gay citizen.

*applauds*

And a noob shall lead them....

You are perfe tly right, there is no current legal basis for the case against gay marriage.

But when this is against Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and many other major faiths in the US, this makes most people against the bill due to it being a sin by religion.

And that's why it is hard to do this. When most of congress is against a bill because of religion or other reasons, it just simply won't work,

As more and more people become atheist, more and more support for gay marriage rights will grow. At this pace, gay marrige will soon be legalized in the United States. No matter how sick or unhealthy it is for it to be legal.

I personally think that it is sick and wrong and should be outlawed. But that's me.

Well, thanks for admitting that your opinion is yours and yours alone. That's a good start. As for it being a "sin" having anything at all to do with whether or not it should be allowed by law, well, that's another story. See, this little thing -- document, actually -- called the Constitution basically states that Congress doesn't have to take religious ideas into account. The fact that many choose too should be a mark of shame, but that's another argument.

That's nice, you'll note we are discussing something that is actually happening in the real world. We really don't give a fuck about about your NS nation, this isn't RP.

Hey now, no need to get pissy. The guy clearly didn't know. That's not how you encourage newbies.

Why would you encourage newbies?

I agree with the right for gay couples to marry, especially in a civil sense. We are all equal.

I would vehemently oppose it if my church agreed to let gay couples marry because I do not believe that in the eyes of God gay couples are equal to straight ones.

But the bottom line is that my religious beliefs should not affect the civil rights of a gay citizen.

I used to be against Gay Marriage because of my religion as well. Then I came to the conclusion that Civil Unions should be allowed, certainly, because thats not really a 'marriage' and therefore religiously acceptable, and of course, under the US Constitution there is no reason for gays not to have some marital equivalent. Maybe half a week later I came to a superior conclusion that if Gays get the exact same thing as a marriage, but it needs to be called a different name, it would be a better setup to just call all of the unions weddings, regardless of the sexual makeup of the couple, after all, if they are really the same thing, why even care to call them something different?

After this I began thinking, and one day I started to reflect more deeply on a lot of Christ's words, and the contexts in which homosexuality is so discouraged in the Bible. I noticed that paganism, or foreign cultures is almost always brought up, along with admonitions against homosexuality, the same with tattoos being forbidden in the OT. I have a Jesus Fish tattoo... tattoos are no longer a symbol for pagans to honor/worship the dead, modern culture has seemingly erased that entire meaning, and so I have no qualm with my tattoo in the least. I applied a similar school of thought to homosexuality. Why can two people, say, Jan, and Jane, not love each other, and thirst for the Holiness of God? The religious/cultural forbodance made sense 2000+ years ago, to help keep Judaism distinct, but such an idea seems no longer applicable, does it? I don't think so.

It follows a similar vein as women not being allowed to speak in Church, a rule (not even a law, just Paul saying how he thought it should be) that culturally made sense but has little relevence in modern culture. Jesus makes it clear that, as followers of Him, we (that is to say, Christians) need to love God, and to love others as we love ourselves. Moreover, I don't recall Jesus Himself forbidding homosexuality, and He had a lot of stuff to say on a lot of different topics. He uses 'sin' as a term to describe things that take us farther from God, but in modern society, why should homosexuality necessarily be an afront to God? Sure, 'He created them man, and women.' He obviously intended for men to be with women, and my hope is that such relationships remain in the majority (from a mostly biological sense), but merely because someone doesn't fit completely the 'intended' role does not make them sinners, God made men to wear beards, yet we do not call men sinners who shave, women were clearly intended to bear children, yet they are not shunned who choose not to, or for some other reason do not have children.

I used to be against Gay Marriage because of my religion as well. Then I came to the conclusion that Civil Unions should be allowed, certainly, because thats not really a 'marriage' and therefore religiously acceptable, and of course, under the US Constitution there is no reason for gays not to have some marital equivalent. Maybe half a week later I came to a superior conclusion that if Gays get the exact same thing as a marriage, but it needs to be called a different name, it would be a better setup to just call all of the unions weddings, regardless of the sexual makeup of the couple, after all, if they are really the same thing, why even care to call them something different?

After this I began thinking, and one day I started to reflect more deeply on a lot of Christ's words, and the contexts in which homosexuality is so discouraged in the Bible. I noticed that paganism, or foreign cultures is almost always brought up, along with admonitions against homosexuality, the same with tattoos being forbidden in the OT. I have a Jesus Fish tattoo... tattoos are no longer a symbol for pagans to honor/worship the dead, modern culture has seemingly erased that entire meaning, and so I have no qualm with my tattoo in the least. I applied a similar school of thought to homosexuality. Why can two people, say, Jan, and Jane, not love each other, and thirst for the Holiness of God? The religious/cultural forbodance made sense 2000+ years ago, to help keep Judaism distinct, but such an idea seems no longer applicable, does it? I don't think so.

It follows a similar vein as women not being allowed to speak in Church, a rule (not even a law, just Paul saying how he thought it should be) that culturally made sense but has little relevence in modern culture. Jesus makes it clear that, as followers of Him, we (that is to say, Christians) need to love God, and to love others as we love ourselves. Moreover, I don't recall Jesus Himself forbidding homosexuality, and He had a lot of stuff to say on a lot of different topics. He uses 'sin' as a term to describe things that take us farther from God, but in modern society, why should homosexuality necessarily be an afront to God? Sure, 'He created them man, and women.' He obviously intended for men to be with women, and my hope is that such relationships remain in the majority (from a mostly biological sense), but merely because someone doesn't fit completely the 'intended' role does not make them sinners, God made men to wear beards, yet we do not call men sinners who shave, women were clearly intended to bear children, yet they are not shunned who choose not to, or for some other reason do not have children.

Now if only all followers of the abrahamic god would go through the thought process that you did...

That's nice, you'll note we are discussing something that is actually happening in the real world. We really don't give a fuck about about your NS nation, this isn't RP.
Hey now, no need to get pissy. The guy clearly didn't know. That's not how you encourage newbies.


If he could read he'd have seen that we were talking about the real world...

He uses 'sin' as a term to describe things that take us farther from God, but in modern society, why should homosexuality necessarily be an afront to God?
What will really get you, is why in ancient society?

He obviously intended for men to be with women,
Of course, dicks are for chicks. Nothing could be simpler. Function is derivative of form, after all, right? Nevermind that the form of the homosexual brain/some hormones and receptors are different anyway.

and my hope is that such relationships remain in the majority (from a mostly biological sense)
Necessity tends to ensure these things. Necessity. Programmed into you. Prorogation... Necessary. Developed consciousness is lacking for the function. The alternative is a baser process, and it is there. Problem solved.
You did not create this process. You cannot do much in the way of conciously changing this process (except for those who do things like BSDM, but that is different structure, you are not born with that, although genetic predisposition may exist is not the same structure/category/issue as homosexuality/heterosexuality). The process need not exist only as one kind of relation. Orientation need not purely exist on the basis of reproduction. The relationships are a derivative of the mechanical function. There may be soul, but orientation will not operate without the base mechanical function. You will not produce this function otherwise. Homosexual relationships could only become a majority as a result of a change in mechanical function, which would involve whole brain, and for that matter genetic restructuring.

Now if only all followers of the abrahamic god would go through the thought process that you did...

I guess I'm just a super-genius.

What will really get you, is why in ancient society?

Lower rate of survivability. More christian babies means a larger potential power base for christianity.

Lower rate of survivability. More christian babies means a larger potential power base for christianity.
Yeah, I know. Probably part of the same reason they did it in the so-called Soviet Union.
But survivability for the species, or the power base? Is it not entirely possible that, for instance, homosexuality has a part in averting an otherwise creeping encroachment of some entropic process that would lead to an eventual destruction (even though I think there are likely immediate benefits which would better ensure survival at the cost of faster reproduction)?

I've not evidence this example, but as an example, in this power-base patriarchal society where women aren't supposed to have as much of a place in decision-making, if one is a homosexual male, might they want to work against war/regimes, war sacrificing males (or for that matter, suffering society/people in general!)? And even not that - women being less oriented towards war due to psychological structure, homosexual males also have some key components in the brain more resembling that of the female (but which I note need not make one more feminine, nor have I the psychological data to support that it may be possible for them to be part of the following...), as a result, be less oriented towards this entropy of war or similar, this large-scale destruction and domination being inherently entropic (as is the nature of the likely insane, patriarchal power-bases)? - thus being a process of nature/evolution/whatever balancing itself. Wouldn't this, then, work for the survivability of the species, as an example?

Does nature/evolution/whatever REALLY "want" 100% heterosexual males, just because it can reproduce more quickly? Are there really no other possibilities allowing for greater long-term, or even immediate survival?

I guess I'm just a super-genius.

Possibly... :)

But considering some of the really stupid arguments we've seen here on NSG from some of the christian posters (usually 1 shot post and runs) I'd say that that isn't necessary to be smarter than some...

the so-called Soviet Union.

Wait... not to thread-jack... but why do you say 'so-called'? I'm pretty sure that was it's name....

Names have meanings. But, you might also consider reading the rest of the post.

Names have meanings. But, you might also consider reading the rest of the post.

I wasn't commenting on the rest of the post... merely your use of the term 'so-called' on a National Identity. Hence why I apologized for the threadjack.

I wasn't commenting on the rest of the post... merely your use of the term 'so-called' on a National Identity. Hence why I apologized for the threadjack.
The Soviet Union is not just a "National Identity". Soviet Union the place constituted several countries; Soviet Union the idea is an ideological construct derived from elsewhere. I know you were not commenting on the rest of the post; the rest however is just as pertinent.

The Soviet Union is not just a "National Identity". Soviet Union the place constituted several countries; Soviet Union the idea is an ideological construct derived from elsewhere. I know you were not commenting on the rest of the post; the rest however is just as pertinent.

So, in other words you can't actually explain why you used the term 'so-called' and are just trying to dance around the subject because you don't want to admit you had no basis for using the term?

I lol @ newbies.

So, in other words you can't actually explain why you used the term 'so-called' and are just trying to dance around the subject because you don't want to admit you had no basis for using the term?

I lol @ newbies.
It was pretty straight forward. I don't agree with the usage of the term Soviet Union to describe their organization. But that's really not as pertinent as the rest of the post.
And I've been watching here since at least 2007.

It was pretty straight forward. I don't agree with the usage of the term Soviet Union to describe their organization. But that's really not as pertinent as the rest of the post.

Oh... well it took you three explanatory posts just to let that one-liner slip.

You'll note that I didn't question the rest of your post, or how any part of your post interacted with Gay Rights. Or indeed, how pertinent any of it was to the OP/thread.

You'll note that I didn't question the rest of your post, or how any part of your post interacted with Gay Rights. Or indeed, how pertinent any of it was to the OP/thread.
That's my point.

That's my point.

That's your point? That's your point about what?

How good of a post you made, which I never debated, or commented on at all? I asked a fairly simple question, and you responded twice by referring me to unrelated things in your post, which again, I never commented on.

That's your point? That's your point about what?

How good of a post you made, which I never debated, or commented on at all? I asked a fairly simple question, and you responded twice by referring me to unrelated things in your post, which again, I never commented on.
That's what I'm saying.

That's what I'm saying.

I have the feeling that 'what you are saying' is the fanciest form of nothing.

I have the feeling that 'what you are saying' is the fanciest form of nothing.
That's why we think with our minds instead.

That's why we think with our minds instead.

Hmm... interesting.

Hmm... interesting.
From the viewpoint of your intellect or your emotion?

From the viewpoint of your intellect or your emotion?

You are highly amusing to both.

You are highly amusing to both.
I would posit that life is about more than amusement.
Looking at the world from the viewpoint of amusement doesn't give a very full image.

I would posit that life is about more than amusement.
Looking at the world from the viewpoint of amusement doesn't give a very full image.

I see... and perhaps you can cite where exactly I suggested that amusement was the fulfillment of life? Or that looking only to amusement gives an adequate representation of the world?

Anyway, back to Gay Marriage. I'm pretty sure it should be legalized throughout the US.

*nod*

Anyway, back to Gay Marriage. I'm pretty sure it should be legalized throughout the US.
From the viewpoint of your intellect or your emotion?

I lol @ newbies.

*nod*

I don't see how I am supposed to understand your argument if you have not stated where it is coming from.

I don't see how I am supposed to understand your argument if you have not stated where it is coming from.

That's funny, for someone who spent so much time making sure I read your posts, you did not extend the same courtesy to me. My viewpoint is much more expanded upon in earlier posts.

That's funny, for someone who spent so much time making sure I read your posts, you did not extend the same courtesy to me. My viewpoint is much more expanded upon in earlier posts.
I don't consider my posts important by themselves. And your previous viewpoints/posts changed source frequently, so I don't consider them consistent enough to judge this one.

I don't consider my posts important by themselves. And your previous viewpoints/posts changed source frequently, so I don't consider them consistent enough to judge this one.

I see, and you are an expert at judging the consistency of viewpoints? Additionally, in what way are my posts inconsistent?

I see, and you are an expert at judging the consistency of viewpoints? Additionally, in what way are my posts inconsistent?
They're either consistent enough for me to make a basis or they aren't.
And I mean by source.

Does nature/evolution/whatever REALLY "want" 100% heterosexual males, just because it can reproduce more quickly? Are there really no other possibilities allowing for greater long-term, or even immediate survival?
Nature and evolution don't work that way.

Evolution is the result of natural selection/"nature." It isn't a judgment on anything. It's just a reflection of who survived and who didn't.

Selection does not work on the population level. If a trait is beneficial for the population as a whole while sacrificing individual reproductive success, it will NOT thrive, because individuals who have that trait will not reproduce as successfully as individuals who do not have the trait. Over time the incidence of the trait will decrease.

(If you want more on this, look up "Altruism and Natural Selection" or something along those lines.)

The fact that homosexuality is a trait which continues to thrive in countless species does not mean that there's some kind of magical population control at work thanks to the will of Benevolent Nature. What it means is that there are basically two possibilities:

1) Homosexuality is not a trait that is passed down biologically. This we have pretty solidly rejected; while homosexuality is not 100% genetic, there definitely is SOME genetic component to it.

2) The biological component of homosexuality is a trait which does not significantly hamper reproductive fitness.

There are a couple of ways this could work.

Obviously one factor is, how well do homosexuals reproduce, on the individual level? Well, homosexuality is not linked to infertility. Homosexuals are perfectly capable of engaging in reproductive sex acts, just like heterosexuals are perfectly capable of engaging in non-reproductive sex contact. Lots of gay people have biological kids.

Another factor is, homosexuality and heterosexuality don't have to be binary options. It's quite possible (and likely) that the biological component for homosexuality is only part of the picture, so an individual could carry that component and yet end up being heterosexual because the biological trait alone is not enough to determine adult sexual orientation.

Another option is that reproductive fitness is NOT defined by how many babies you make. Reproductive fitness is about how good a job you do of getting your genes into the next generation. If you make 100 babies and only 5 of them survive to adulthood, you're no more successful than somebody who had 5 kids and got them all to adulthood.

In addition, remember that your biological siblings are as genetically related to you as your biological offspring would be; helping your brothers and sisters thrive is just as good, in terms of reproductive fitness, as having your own kids and helping them survive. Helping your parents thrive and continue to have offspring would also work just as well. Making babies of your own is not even required!


Sorry if this was long and nerdy. ("If." Who am I kidding? :D)

Selection does not work on the population level. If a trait is beneficial for the population as a whole while sacrificing individual reproductive success, it will NOT thrive, because individuals who have that trait will not reproduce as successfully as individuals who do not have the trait. Over time the incidence of the trait will decrease.

In today's modern world and the advance of many technological levels does this apply to the human race as much as it would have in the past?

Evolution is the result of natural selection/"nature." It isn't a judgment on anything. It's just a reflection of who survived and who didn't. "Want" is in quotation marks. I thought I had made it clear that I understood this in the rest of the post. I only allowed other possibilities inorder to avoid a discussion of the process of evolution itself. It was my proposal that somewhere along the line, some parts of humanity genetically came upon homosexuality, under the standard mutation/natural selection streamlining process , and that those groups had better survivability. I am aware that there are components that maintain it on an individual basis.

In today's modern world and the advance of many technological levels does this apply to the human race as much as it would have in the past?

Of course. Why wouldn't it?

Homosexuality is a personal preference, with possibly with some genetic influences. All human characteristics are in part caused by genes.

Of course. Why wouldn't it?

So the traits will nowadays stay around and new ones might not come about simply becaus eof selection?

So the traits will nowadays stay around and new ones might not come about simply becaus eof selection?
I'm not sure I understand what you're asking, sorry.

Homosexuality is a personal preference

Are you gonna back that up, or does your shit stay unsourced?

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking, sorry.

Hang on, I am tired at the moment. I will re-read your post and try and formulate a question or two that actually makes sense maybe tomorrow.

from:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090416/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_new_york

This:
Diaz also said it is "disrespectful" of Paterson to introduce the legislation in the same week that Catholics celebrated the installation of New York City Archbishop Timothy Dolan.

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/exploding-head.gif

from:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090416/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_new_york

This:


http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/exploding-head.gif
Disrespectful: introducing legislation that would recognize the equal legal standing of all adult citizens in regards to civil marriage contracts.

Respectful: Continuing to support the Catholic Church, which actively and publicly advocates discrimination whenever anybody will listen.

That's true but as you say they are able to push their beliefs into law just like yourself and really how hard is it for people to come up with reasons that don't mention the bible or say it is an affront to their religion against gay marriage.

I don't know, how hard is it? I have yet to see a single such reason that can't be extremely easily debunked - and such reasons are always pretty clearly just something someone came up with to try and justify their religious beliefs.

As for the Amendments they can push o also have these changed if it is against the beliefs (remember beliefs aren't always religious in nature)

Yes, they can push to have those changed if they are truly opposed to equality or religious freedoms. However, even most bigots are intelligent enough to realize that those amendments protect them just as clearly as they protect everyone else - and thus generally don't try to remove the protections. Instead, they come up with crackpot reasons that those protections just shouldn't count for everyone else.

I don't know, how hard is it? I have yet to see a single such reason that can't be extremely easily debunked - and such reasons are always pretty clearly just something someone came up with to try and justify their religious beliefs.

Now I never claimed they couldn't easily be debunked just they could be without religious reasons :wink:

Yes, they can push to have those changed if they are truly opposed to equality or religious freedoms. However, even most bigots are intelligent enough to realize that those amendments protect them just as clearly as they protect everyone else - and thus generally don't try to remove the protections. Instead, they come up with crackpot reasons that those protections just shouldn't count for everyone else.

True, but if one truly wants to have your belief regardless of what it is and it is denied by existing legislation people can if they want try and get this to be changed. But the point I was trying to make was that all citizens of the US are allowed to get their beliefs into law whether that is a belief that all people in moving vehicles should be required to wear seat belts or that people should be allowed to carry as many guns on them as they want.