New York Assembly passes Same-Sex Marriage

[LightHorseman]

And yet, for all of Unwin's cutting edge 1935 research, the sky has still not fallen.

Um... and wouldn't allowing homosexual marriage INCREASE marital fidelity, rather than decrease it?

(I do so wish people would stop using "homosexual" and "infidelity" or "promiscuity" interchangibly. Stopping using "homosexuality" interchangibly with "male-male anal penetrative sex" would be nice too.)

 

[katautumn]

There are bad things that are going to occur whether or not there are laws against is. Does that mean we should permit it? People are going to steal and kill whether there are laws against it or not. No law is going to stop that. So by your logic murder and stealing should be legal?

Why must people bring murder, rape, child molestation, theft, etc. into these debates as if two people getting married comes anywhere close? Here is the difference, and it's a crucial one - back before the 1960 & 70's it was illegal in most states for interracial couples to marry. It was viewed as "perverse", "corrupt" and "an affront to traditional American values". With that said, the black man and the white woman marrying in the next state over did nothing to demean the marriages of people from the same race. It was simply two adults who fell in love and mutually consented to entering into the bonds of marriage. Same goes for same-sex marriages.

Rape, murder, theft, child molestation, assault - all involve one person acting in a malicious fashion toward another person (or people) against their consent.

The problem with your logic about african americans is that the Bible never says, "Blacks will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven"

Depends on who you ask. I know lots of Primitive Baptists who believe black people are of the "cursed seed of Ham" and are, therefore, considered lesser people in God's eyes. Just as some Christians do not believe gays and lesbians should be prohibited from marrying.

There is a clear prohibition against homosexuality in the Bible. There is no prohibition against being black.

Not trying to be crass, but so what? I'm not a Christian. My husband is not a Christian. In fact, the only Christian in my family is my father. Why should we be forced to live under oppressive Biblical laws? Why should we be expected to uphold the "standards" of Christianity when it comes to the government making laws?

Bottom line, no one is saying you have to like the idea of same-sex couples getting married. If it's against your religious beliefs then that's your emotional and mental burden to bear, not your entire community's. Just because something is legal doesn't mean you are forced into liking it or even accepting it. Drinking alcohol is legal. Smoking cigarettes is legal. Driving a huge SUV is legal. And yet some people do not find such things appealing or morally acceptable. Doesn't mean these things being lawful is in any way forcing the dissenter to engage in such activities or even like them. It is what it is.

 

[SiderealExalt]

Why must people bring murder, rape, child molestation, theft, etc. into these debates as if two people getting married comes anywhere close? Here is the difference, and it's a crucial one - back before the 1960 & 70's it was illegal in most states for interracial couples to marry. It was viewed as "perverse", "corrupt" and "an affront to traditional American values". With that said, the black man and the white woman marrying in the next state over did nothing to demean the marriages of people from the same race. It was simply two adults who fell in love and mutually consented to entering into the bonds of marriage. Same with same-sex marriages.

Rape, murder, theft, child molestation, assault - all involve one person acting in a malicious fashion toward another person (or people) against their consent.

To add to that. It disturbs me that people immediately go there when it comes to gay marriage.

If people implied that when discussing Christian marriages they'd have a riot.

 

[katautumn]

To add to that. It disturbs me that people immediately go there when it comes to gay marriage.

If people implied that when discussing Christian marriages they'd have a riot.

True, although the hypocrisy and double standards no longer shock me. They do, however, disappoint me immensely.

 

[SiderealExalt]

True, although the hypocrisy and double standards no longer shock me. They do, however, disappoint me immensely.

It just confounds me, completely and utterly confounds me. I may know that I'm not perfect and a hypocrite at times, but I try to you know...NOT be a hypocrite.

This sort of stuff just strikes me as not only being one, but WANTING to be one. I just don't get it.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

For those against same-sex marriage:
irregardless of your position on homosexuality, why do you think it is grounds for discrimination via US policy? Our government is run by the constitution, not the bible. The bible doesnt guarantee free speech, the bible doesnt have a due process clause, the constitution protects these things. Believe what you want, but why make it policy?

Why should do you feel you have the right to force your religious morality on other people's lives? why is it your business?

 

[Jonathan David]

Report from Canada: We have had same sex marriage across the country for 4 years... so far, the sky remains firmly attached to the area above the earth.

 

[Jase]

I meant the government I was proposing. Not that I would run the government. Like a woman would be qualified to gun the government!

Um, women are quite certainly qualified to run a government, in fact they are typically better than men. While it is a rather small population, take New Zealand as an example. Most politically uncorrupt country in the world, ranks top 5 quality of living in the world, and has the most civil rights in the world. It also happens to be the only country in the world in which women held every high political office at the same time. It has a female Prime Minister. I find it rather sad, that you as a woman, consider yourself and all other women to be completely inferior.

You need to analyze your viewpoint a little better. Archaic, legalistic literalism will not persuade anyone, nor is it what God intended. You are speaking from the pov of the Pharisees, and Jesus had a lot of not so nice things to say about them.

 

[Chazemataz]

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Romans 1:26-27 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Jude 1:7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire. (Genesis 19:3-5)

Not everyone believes in the bible, you know. Come back when you have 100% irrefutable proof that every word is correct and your particular thought system/denomination is any better than my liberal theology.

Ten bucks says you'll reply to this with more scripture

 

[fated]

Won't have to:
FindLaw | Cases and Codes

This is not a good thing.

The use of the federal judiciary to remove plausible defensible laws and constitutions passed by the states is not good for this country. It is not good. I think if I could shift people from their gay marriage at any cost mentality, I could get them to see what a bad idea this 'precedent' is.

And, this post is stupid, because it calls people who disagree bigots. I'm seriously having a harder and harder time even sympathizing with a group that whose activists call reasonable people bigots as a from of propaganda.

 

[gnomon]

This is not a good thing.

The use of the federal judiciary to remove plausible defensible laws and constitutions passed by the states is not good for this country. It is not good. I think if I could shift people from their gay marriage at any cost mentality, I could get them to see what a bad idea this 'precedent' is.

And, this post is stupid, because it calls people who disagree bigots. I'm seriously having a harder and harder time even sympathizing with a group that whose activists call reasonable people bigots as a from of propaganda.

It's the "federal judiciary's" job, aka, the United States Supreme Court, to review law, be it state or federal, and determine if the law meets constitutional requirements. The horror that they found that the state telling people they could not marry based on their skin color to be unconstitutional. In other words, they found the State was co-opting the rights held by the citizens by natural law.

Picking out a single post to declare less sympathy for an entire group of people is irrelevant to the debate. Picking up a book on basic civics would be a better use of your time.

 

[wanderingone]

And everyone here sees this as a GOOD thing???

Yes, seems to me my youngest daughter should have the same rights as everyone else.

 

[wanderingone]

<staff edit>

Who says we're entitled to the pursuit of happiness? Man's law? Nothing in God's law says we have the right to be happy. Humans are here to make God happy, not themselves happy. Homosexuality does not make God happy.

We're talking man's law here. Your personal understanding of God's laws are meant for you to adhere to, public law has no place propping up your faith.