Gay Marriage Bill Passed in New York's State Government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Traditionalists mostly tolerate their lifestyle, it would be nice if gays showed the same courtisy . I don't blame tradionalists if they see it as an act of agression.

---

Traditionalists can still get a traditional wedding if they so desire. A traditional wedding being a church ceremony, not filing some papers at the local city hall (which is a relatively modern concept). Even in the Neth's, where same-sex marriage has been legal for 10 years now.

What the traditionalists in the Neth's can't do is withold the legal rights & obligations associated with a civil/state marriage from couples that don't fit in their worldview.

You're right, they're the agressors. They're the one challenging the status quo after all. And they hold the moral high ground in doing so.

Speaking of jews (post right above mine), did anyone else here knew that interfaith marriage, or a purely civil marriage is impossible in the state of Israel?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

Traditionalists can still get a traditional wedding if they so desire. A traditional wedding being a church ceremony, not filing some papers at the local city hall (which is a relatively modern concept).

---

I avoided bringing religion into this, I don't care about fairytales. I said that marriage goes beyond the law as it is a tradition, and I still haven't heard anything that makes that BS. I don't give crap that they really really want it, they shouldn't really really want it as it just isn't the same thing. All fine with me, marry your senseo for all I care, but it remains a farce and I'm with the conservatives if they feel tresspassed. Can't have everything.

Okay.

Of course gay marriage is a different thing from straight marriage. And to answer one of your previous posts: "You also see the difference, otherwise you would just call it 'marriage' instead of 'gay marriage'." Of course I see the difference (aside from the obvious difference of gender there's the equally obvious difference that one of them is illegal in the vast majority of countries) but it's an irrelevant difference. Being able to produce genetic offspring has never been a legal or religious requirement for getting married and therefore it's not an essential part. And besides, there are many legal consequenses associated with marriage that don't (directly) relate to children, and limiting those to heteresexual couples is pointless.

Tradition is not a valid reason in itself. Things become tradition because people don't see any good reason in trying to change those things. The whole point of this discussion is there are good reasons to change things.

The conservatives have no good reason to feel "tresspassed" because legalising gay marriage doesn't affect their own (heterosexual) marriages anymore then they're affected by sham marriages or divorces/remarriages that are already happening. The notion that they're just trying to protect the meaning of a word is bogus (not that it was a particulary strong argument to begin with), what they're really trying to do is avoiding more social acceptance for homosexuals by giving them equality under the law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

Speaking of jews (post right above mine), did anyone else here knew that interfaith marriage, or a purely civil marriage is impossible in the state of Israel?

---

Like I needed a further reason to be creeped out by Israel? Oh, uh, nevermind, I'm an American and am not allowed to think rationally about them. BEST ALLY EVAR.

I salute Fragony for taking an unpopular position, but I'm kinda disappointed he has made so few arguments. And Frags, the ones you are making don't make a metric ton of sense.

I get that you're icked out by gays and think gay marriage is stupid. Got it. No need to find yet another way to re-phrase that. But why should your icky feelings and belief that gays are pushy and playing make believe .... why should that stand between a couple and their shot at happiness? I mean, this is not a hypothetical or low-stakes question. When the state says you can't marry the person you want to be with, it's not a minor thing. Furthermore, history has generally come down against people who support such bans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

why should that stand between a couple and their shot at happiness?

---

Marriage = happiness? Is that the argument you're going to make?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Marriage = happiness? Is that the argument you're going to make?

---

I'd say the more pertinent question is: could you please reread the two posts you misquoted in this thread so far, properly this time?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

why should that stand between a couple and their shot at happiness?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Marriage = happiness? Is that the argument you're going to make?

---

And furthermore, why does the Declaration of Independence guarantee happiness to every American, huh? What's that about?

To paraphrase Ben Franklin, you're only give the right to pursue it. You have to catch it yourself. Methinks Xiahou needs moar coffee.

ATPG I just can't cope with how much you write, sorry. :embarassed:

Anyway, the funny thing I don't give a damn what gays do, but somehow the state is intruding in their lives if it doesn't put a rubber stamp on their relationship.

Guess what it works the other way around. They are intruding when they want recognition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

And furthermore, why does the Declaration of Independence guarantee happiness to every American, huh? What's that about?

---

Meanwhile the government is infringing my pursuit of happiness because it won't give me £1,000,000...

Pursuit of happiness is about the government leaving you alone. Not demanding that it respects your sexual relationships.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfylwr

Meanwhile the government is infringing my pursuit of happiness because it won't give me £1,000,000...

Pursuit of happiness is about the government leaving you alone. Not demanding that it respects your sexual relationships.

---

The government would, in fact, be infringing on your pursuit of happiness if it gave everyone in Scotland £1,000,000 except you and a handful of others because of the totally irrelevant reason that you do X or are Y and thus are a deviant of some sort.

Of course, the government could avoid all this hassle by stop handing out £1,000,000 cheques entirely, but you'd probably be happier to get the money just like everyone else.

PS is your signature a LOTR reference?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

The government would, in fact, be infringing on your pursuit of happiness if it gave everyone in Scotland £1,000,000 except you and a handful of others because of the totally irrelevant reason that you do X or are Y and thus are a deviant of some sort.

Of course, the government could avoid all this hassle by stop handing out £1,000,000 cheques entirely, but you'd probably be happier to get the money just like everyone else.

PS is your signature a LOTR reference?

---

But gays can marry the same way I do...

Anyway, yeah it is a LOTR reference, stuck "Scots" in place of "dwarves".

Of all the arguments against gay marriage, I find that to be the most annoying.

I know the comparison has been made pretty often, but it's very fitting here: using the same reasoning you can say that forbidding interracial marriage isn't discriminatory. It applies to everyone, and allows everyone to marry people of the same race.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfylwr

Anyway, the funny thing I don't give a damn what gays do, but somehow the state is intruding in their lives if it doesn't put a rubber stamp on their relationship.

Guess what it works the other way around. They are intruding when they want recognition.

---

You most certainly give a damn about them when it comes to marriage.

And lack of recognition is certainly a form of oppression, which is in turn intruding on people's lives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfylwr

But gays can marry the same way I do...

---

That old saw? Sheesh, I think that canard is older than the internets. Yes, gay people are free to marry people of the opposite sex, which of course they have no desire to do, what with them being gay and all. Now write that a hundred times on a blackboard until your eyes glaze when you see it.

People whom you don't like want to form families. Although it is illogical, many of the things we associate with "family" are regulated by the state in the form of "marriage." So while marriage is a privilege, not a right, it is perfectly logical for a minority to agitate—successfully!—for a piece of that privilege. Note that the New York bill contains many guarantees that no church need perform any union it doesn't like. Note that one of the most-ballyhooed apocalyptic consequences of queer marriage has failed to manifest itself—no gay couple has ever forced a church to marry, recognize or bless them. And no such lawsuit has ever been filed. (Although with the American legal system being what it is, I guess somebody will be dumb enough to try sometime, and waste a few thou before getting smacked down.)

My neighbors in Brooklyn were a couple of sixty-something men who had lived together for the better part of forty years. Good neighbors, good people. Kept an eye on our property and had us over for dinner often enough. Many of the guarantees you take for granted were denied them. When the elder died, his partner could not visit him in the hospital. Think on that, please. The position you advocate leads to real, tangible suffering. The position I advocate causes nothing but your ill-defined, poorly defended disgust and distaste.

There are, by some estimates, roughly 1,400 legal and economic benefits that come with marriage. Things like sharing your health plan, inheritance, etc. Consider carefully if your ick factor is worth denying these benefits to other human beings. Consider carefully.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

Of all the arguments against gay marriage, I find that to be the most annoying.

I know the comparison has been made pretty often, but it's very fitting here: using the same reasoning you can say that forbidding interracial marriage isn't discriminatory. It applies to everyone, and allows everyone to marry people of the same race.

---

It's not the same, since right now there is one type of marriage - a man and a woman can marry. With your idea there would be lots of different types for a white man/woman, black man/woman etc. So they would be separate but equal.

Gays on the other hand want something that isn't even marriage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

And lack of recognition is certainly a form of oppression, which is in turn intruding on people's lives.

---

No it is not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

That old saw? Sheesh, I think that canard is older than the internets. Yes, gay people are free to marry people of the opposite sex, which of course they have no desire to do, what with them being gay and all. Now write that a hundred times on a blackboard until your eyes glaze when you see it.

---

And asexuals may have no desire to marry, so whats your point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

People whom you don't like want to form families. Although it is illogical, many of the things we associate with "family" are regulated by the state in the form of "marriage." So while marriage is a privilege, not a right, it is perfectly logical for a minority to agitate—successfully!—for a piece of that privilege.

---

And it is logical for people to oppose it. But at least you agree it is a privilege and not a right that they can have on the grounds of freedom of expression/equality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Note that one of the most-ballyhooed apocalyptic consequences of queer marriage has failed to manifest itself—no gay couple has ever forced a church to marry, recognize or bless them. And no such lawsuit has ever been filed. (Although with the American legal system being what it is, I guess somebody will be dumb enough to try sometime, and waste a few thou before getting smacked down.)

---

Is this you pulling your own gutmensch?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur;2053335527My neighbors in Brooklyn were a couple of sixty-something men who had lived together for the better part of forty years. Good neighbors, good people. Kept an eye on our property and had us over for dinner often enough. Many of the guarantees you take for granted were denied them. When the elder died, his partner could not visit him in the hospital. Think on that, please. The position you advocate leads to real, tangible suffering. The position I advocate causes nothing but your ill-defined, poorly defended disgust and distaste.

There are, by some estimates, roughly [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States"

1,400 legal and economic benefits[/URL] that come with marriage. Things like sharing your health plan, inheritance, etc. Consider carefully if your ick factor is worth denying these benefits to other human beings. Consider carefully.

---

They can have those benefits who am I to deny it to them, just call it a civil union and don't ask me to pretend or acknowlewdge that its a marriage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfylwr

It's not the same, since right now there is one type of marriage - a man and a woman can marry. With your idea there would be lots of different types for a white man/woman, black man/woman etc. So they would be separate but equal.

Gays on the other hand want something that isn't even marriage.

---

It doesn't matter if it's exactly the same or not, it's an analogy and it still stands. If restricting marriage to heterosexuals isn't discrimination, then neither is restricting it to people of the same race.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfylwr

gutmensch

---

Maybe someone ought to point out that this is a Nazi propaganda word, probably invented by Joseph Goebbels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

I would blame the school problem on the overarching leftist educational goal of connecting more closely with children (as compared to most of the other school systems in the world), leaving no children to inferior educations (be they mentally handicapped, inner city, etc.), granting the students more power in the classroom and parents more say. That being said i would also blame programs such as the neo cons No Child left Behind, teachers being attacked often by the media and government as easy pandering, i would also blame the administrators of schools.Finally and most of all i blame parents.However, all this is not the forum for this discussion

---

When i get home today, i will make a new thread replying to this post. i am on my phone in class so i cant do it right now but the education system is one of my favorite topics to talk about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

My neighbors in Brooklyn were a couple of sixty-something men who had lived together for the better part of forty years. Good neighbors, good people. Kept an eye on our property and had us over for dinner often enough. Many of the guarantees you take for granted were denied them. When the elder died, his partner could not visit him in the hospital. Think on that, please. The position you advocate leads to real, tangible suffering. The position I advocate causes nothing but your ill-defined, poorly defended disgust and distaste.

---

Why should the right to visit people in the hospitals be restricted to marriages and kin? That seems to be something that should be extended to any close friends whether they be married or not. Of course, the patient would probably need to come up with some official list so it isn't taken advantage of but it seems it should be more inclusive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

People whom you don't like want to form families. Although it is illogical, many of the things we associate with "family" are regulated by the state in the form of "marriage." So while marriage is a privilege, not a right, it is perfectly logical for a minority to agitate—successfully!—for a piece of that privilege.

---

Throwing Frag a bone:

There's your "make believe", a family is one man + one woman = baby. Marriage is just state recognition of biological fact. Ergo, "Gays" claiming that they are being dicriminated against is a non sequiter, unless you want to ague with God/Dawkins.

In any case there are no such thing as "Gay" people, there are men and there are women, and they have different sexual preferences - that does not make them a different gender. Hell, about 100% of the sexually interested population is functionally bi-sexual, it's just that our society looks down on that sort of behavior so 90% of those opt for "straight" and the rest for "Gay", with a few brave souls being honest, stuck in the middle and subjected to abuse such as, "she's just doing it to get a man's attention" or "he just wants to pretend he's normal now and then".

Funny how in each case the assumption is usally that they'd prefer a man!

I got angrier than I was expecting.

Arguing with god? No.... The proper term would be "disregard god", and I'm very happy to do just that. What you believe your god wants is completely irrelevant to me.

Same with Dawkins, though I'm puzzled at why you brought him up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Hell, about 100% of the sexually interested population is functionally bi-sexual, it's just that our society looks down on that sort of behavior so 90% of those opt for "straight" and the rest for "Gay", with a few brave souls being honest, stuck in the middle and subjected to abuse

---

Uhm...no. Most of us are happily heterosexual. :shrug:

Are you sure you are not projecting? Whishful thinking? Rationalising your own dirty thoughts? 'They all share these thoughts...we all think it...it's no big deal...I'm just being more honest'?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

There's your "make believe", a family is one man + one woman = baby. Marriage is just state recognition of biological fact. Ergo, "Gays" claiming that they are being dicriminated against is a non sequiter, unless you want to ague with God/Dawkins.

---

A family can be set up anyway you want it. There is no valid argument or evidence that a family is in anyway defined by the genders of the participants or number of participants.

Quote:

---

In any case there are no such thing as "Gay" people, there are men and there are women, and they have different sexual preferences - that does not make them a different gender. Hell, about 100% of the sexually interested population is functionally bi-sexual, it's just that our society looks down on that sort of behavior so 90% of those opt for "straight" and the rest for "Gay", with a few brave souls being honest, stuck in the middle and subjected to abuse such as, "she's just doing it to get a man's attention" or "he just wants to pretend he's normal now and then".

---

Absolutely wrong and backwards. You are essentially saying that being gay is a choice, not what you are. Under your logic you have chosen to be straight. Here is a bet, I will concede my point and actually acknowledge that gay people don't deserve marriage if you fool around with me in bed. All you have to do is chose to be gay for one night with me, and you win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Uhm...no. Most of us are happily heterosexual. :shrug:

Are you sure you are not projecting? Whishful thinking? Rationalising your own dirty thoughts? 'They all share these thoughts...we all think it...it's no big deal...I'm just being more honest'?

---

Yeah? Tell that to the Spartans, the Athenians, the Afgans.... the modern US prison population.

You get my point. We identify as heterosexual because that is our overwhelming preference, but it is wrong to say "I am" in this case because we are all increments on a sliding scale. Why are teeenage boys generally more homophobic than grown men today? Could it be that they are less sure of their preference and need to reinforce their own self-image?

For that matter, why were all-boy's schools traditionally synonomous with sodomy, and why do the Royal Marines do the Conga naked?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Uhm...no. Most of us are happily heterosexual. :shrug:

Are you sure you are not projecting? Whishful thinking? Rationalising your own dirty thoughts? 'They all share these thoughts...we all think it...it's no big deal...I'm just being more honest'?

---

This has always been my suspicion when some homophobe talks about homosexuality as a choice.

Fact: I don't get a boner from watching gay porn. Since I am not sexually aroused by male nudity, I simply cannot be anything but heterosexual. When I work in the register at the supermarket, I spend my time oogling the hawt female customers(as the job is quite boring most of the time). I do not pay any such attention to the male ones, however handsome they may be.

It is my firm belief that the people who say homosexuality is a choice get a boner from watching gay porn. Would Philipvs be in that same category?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

A family can be set up anyway you want it. There is no valid argument or evidence that a family is in anyway defined by the genders of the participants or number of participants.

---

Man + woman = baby.

Simple biological fact, when a man and a woman jump into bed together they are privilaged to be able to do something no other pairing can.

Quote:

---

Absolutely wrong and backwards. You are essentially saying that being gay is a choice, not what you are. Under your logic you have chosen to be straight. Here is a bet, I will concede my point and actually acknowledge that gay people don't deserve marriage if you fool around with me in bed. All you have to do is chose to be gay for one night with me, and you win.

---

Being Gay is about a preference, given a choice a gay man will sleep with another man. However, his sexual preference no more defines him than his preference for red meat over shellfish. Even if we are "born" with preferences, they are still preferences and we choose to act on them.

I love cheese, that is a preference, and a very strong one. I love sampling different sheeses, I particularly love strong cheeses like stilton, but I am apparently mildly allergic to something in strong cheese and stilton causes sores in my mouth - so I don't eat it. If at some point I turn out to be genuinely lactose intollerant I will have to give cheese up, the thought of a life without cheese is for me a bleak one - but it's not worth my life.

So, what you're saying Philipvs, is that you are fully capable of having sex with another male?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

It is my firm belief that the people who say homosexuality is a choice get a boner from watching gay porn. Would Philipvs be in that same category?

---

Hmmm, never been particularly interested in Gay porn - so I#d say proberly not. I'm not going to make an absolute claim about how I'd feel about it if I was left without any women for 20 years or so. As I said, prison population or Sparta.

Are you suggesting that the people who go to prison are sexually different from you, or that ancient Greeks were actually sexually different as a population. That's silly, the only reasonable conclusion is that we are all a bit bi-sexual, and about 90% of us have an overwhelming preference for the opposite sex, all things being equal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

So, what you're saying Philipvs, is that you are fully capable of having sex with another male?

---

I could ichoose to, but I wouldn't. In the same way a gay man could choose to have sex with a woman, but wouldn't want to. If that weren't possible you wouldn't have people like Edward II and Oscar Wilde having children, would you?

Why does it feel like you're trying to score a point here?

I like girls, really HoreTore, you're in no danger - I even write mildy raunchy poetry (and Tellos can testify to that).

Clear case of closet gay.

I rest my case.

Anyway, back to the actual point:

What you forget in your analysis is fashion. In ancient Greece, it was fashionable to be have sex with other men. Like in the past two decades, it has been more and more fashionable for young girls/women to kiss in public(hooray!), even though plenty of those who do it does not have any sexual satisfaction from the act.

i don't have much a problem imagining that a few well-respected gay Spartans were able to start a fashion trend. Those without power always take after the behaviour of those with power, whether it benefits or pleasures them or not. In a society where being gay is fashionable, there is also no problem for its gay members to get out of the closet, thus making things even gayer. People in power reward those most similar to themselves the most, so gay people in a society with a gay leader would probably rise quickly through the ranks, thus further enforcing the fashion trend.




But no, as for myself, I am not capable of having sex with another male. Sorry. My wee-wee doesn't work that way.