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

[a completely inoffensive name]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...a0fe2ba877339c

So, with New York now having legalized same sex marriage, the # of same sex marriage states is now up to 6. Half way there is Illinois which just recently allowed same sex civil unions to be legal. After California's big defeat, the momentum seemed to stall for states legalizing same sex marriages, but now maybe New York will jump start it again.

But I wonder, am I on the right side here? I mean, there are always two sides to every story, correct? I need some more perspective on this.

What are some typical comments on the main left leaning site I go on (Reddit.com) in reaction to this news:
"Congratulations to the NY senate who chose human rights over partisan politics. It's been proven long ago that homosexuality is not a mental condition or a choice, their bravery in recognizing this is commendable. Hopefully other states will have the guts to do the same."

"I am glad my sister can finally get married and have the same rights I do."

And what are some typical comments on the right leaning site I like to lurk on from time to time (freerepublic.com) in reaction to this news:
"I'll look for a LOT of homosexuals getting infected with HIV in their wanton celebrating tonight. They only need the mildest excuse for debauched behavior."

"Well, I always thought that if the tragic scenario occurred in which Al-Qaeda got its hands on a nuke, for me the least upsetting place for it to be set off would be in Hollywood. But, I’m really thinking right now that New York is pulling to the forefront.
To repeat, burn in hell, New York!!"


Gee, such a gray area here.

[Centurion1]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...a0fe2ba877339c

So, with New York now having legalized same sex marriage, the # of same sex marriage states is now up to 6. Half way there is Illinois which just recently allowed same sex civil unions to be legal. After California's big defeat, the momentum seemed to stall for states legalizing same sex marriages, but now maybe New York will jump start it again.

But I wonder, am I on the right side here? I mean, there are always two sides to every story, correct? I need some more perspective on this.

What are some typical comments on the main left leaning site I go on (Reddit.com) in reaction to this news:
"Congratulations to the NY senate who chose human rights over partisan politics. It's been proven long ago that homosexuality is not a mental condition or a choice, their bravery in recognizing this is commendable. Hopefully other states will have the guts to do the same."

"I am glad my sister can finally get married and have the same rights I do."

And what are some typical comments on the right leaning site I like to lurk on from time to time (freerepublic.com) in reaction to this news:
"I'll look for a LOT of homosexuals getting infected with HIV in their wanton celebrating tonight. They only need the mildest excuse for debauched behavior."

"Well, I always thought that if the tragic scenario occurred in which Al-Qaeda got its hands on a nuke, for me the least upsetting place for it to be set off would be in Hollywood. But, I’m really thinking right now that New York is pulling to the forefront.
To repeat, burn in hell, New York!!"


Gee, such a gray area here.

I'm happy for the people of New York. Yes those comments are disgusting but what do you expect when you go on some far right trash website and look at what alot of people are truly angered by? You seem to make a habit of looking to demonstrate liberals superiority over conservatives. I could find plenty of liberal hate speech both sides of the aislle are violent.

also not sure what the purpose of this thread is since not many orgahs support ban on gay marriage and no one is going to want to touch the timebomb your comments present.

[PanzerJaeger]

Reading the comments section to any gay rights related article is highly depressing. When Drudge happens to pick one up, his legions can literally make you sick to your stomach.

I cannot imagine how so many people can muster so much hatred towards such an innocuous natural variation, and it is almost all couched in Christianity. Here's a few fun ones from Drudge's linked article on the subject (10,000+ comments).

But, you know all this is prophesized in that wonderful book.....the BIBLE. It sez ...."in the latter days men will lust after men and women will lust after women"..... This is all supposed to get worse and worse. The Bible don't lie JP. But, (OH YES!) There is a BUTT. The book also sez....."do not fret, vengeance is mind, I shall repay." HALLELUIAH! PRAISE HIS NAME.

You will not want to stand before HIM as a "gay" caballero. Lord know you won't. Nuf Sed..

A great day for liberals and gays! Insofar as Cuomo is concerned, I hope he and all the others who made this abnormal lifestyle acceptable get what they deserve. Truly these are the days of Noah before the flood when every man will do what is right in his own eyes. Anyone who doesn't believe in the Bible has to be nuts when these things are happening in our lifetime. Since the convenant of God is in the rainbow when He promised not to flood the world again -- I hope those of us who have stood up and spoke out will be able to avoid the conflagration that's soon to come. Truly these are the end of days.

I am always amazed at how ignorant some (certainly not all) Christians are about their history and the ideology they profess to follow.

[Ice]

Reading the comments section to any gay rights related article is highly depressing. When Drudge happens to pick one up, his legions can literally make you sick to your stomach.

I cannot imagine how so many people can muster so much hatred towards such an innocuous natural variation, and it is almost all couched in Christianity. Here's a few fun ones from Drudge's linked article on the subject (10,000+ comments).


I am always amazed at how ignorant some (certainly not all) Christians are about their history and the ideology they profess to follow.

Haha... sigh... yeah. It's kind of funny when these same people complain about "radical Islam".

[Lemur]

Oh hell, I'm going to be buying a lot more wedding presents this year.

[Beskar]

I am glad America is continuing its path in moving forward into the 21th century from the 18th.

[a completely inoffensive name]

You seem to make a habit of looking to demonstrate liberals superiority over conservatives.

You misinterpret what I am usually getting at Cent. I don't think that liberals are in any way superior to conservatives. I am trying to point out how in general, in America, the average conservative seems to be fueled in large part by anger and ignorance in his/her philosophical foundation that is serving as the basis for their being a conservative. In no way do average American conservatives actually found their basis of conservatism upon the logical, rational and in most cases absolutely correct arguments of the classical philosophers dating hundreds of years back to the Enlightenment and before.

For the most part, the real leftist ideas of Marxism, Communism and a complete abandonment of a free market system are absolutely wrong and trash and lead to very bad and terrible results. The "right" has been shown over time to be correct in their assessment of the really leftist ideas (and now maybe semi leftist ideas like the welfare state as well). However, when I was reading F. A. Hayek's book the Road to Serfdom (still haven't completely finished it because I have to read philosophy books for class now), he makes it absolutely clear that the leftist planners that were trying to create a utopia were in almost all cases all doing it out of a genuine, pure intention of good will. They were trying to make everyone's lives better and more fair and F. A. Hayek was simply elaborating upon how their ideas were wrong. There was no demonizing from him about their character and there was no paranoia about "radicals", only that philosophical mistakes were being made. That kind of person has been largely gone in the conservative base since before Buckley died.

I am not saying that liberals are better in any way then conservatives, I am just saying that the average liberals are in general more compassionate and understanding than the average conservative who are paranoid and angry. You can be completely compassionate and generous and understanding as a conservative if you actually know and understand the basis of the philosophy behind conservatism and its origins from classical liberalists. But using terminology that Strike uses, for the most part the Republican primaries show that the average conservatism is less about creating beneficial free market incentives to help the poor (in contrast to to large social programs) and more about who is ruining America: the brown people, the muslim brown people or the gays.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Here is the perfect example from this very event: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_McD...8politician%29

Roy McDonald was a Republican who voted for the bill to legalize gay marriage, why?

"You get to the point where you evolve in your life where everything isn't black and white, good and bad, and you try to do the right thing. You might not like that. You might be very cynical about that. Well, I don't care what you think. I'm trying to do the right thing. I'm tired of Republican-Democrat politics. They can take the job and shove it. I come from a blue-collar background. I'm trying to do the right thing, and that's where I'm going with this." -McDonald

And now instead of any sort of understanding from the mainstream conservative base that he wasn't trying to be any sort of radical forcing policy on the public, his character is now attacked as evil, or spineless.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I always thought it was funny how partisan American politics could be, when there is so little difference between the two serious parties.

As for the left-right point scoring with one side saying "bah, you have all the fanatics and idiots"... well, I think it is true that there are more extremists on the right in the USA.

I don't think this is because of something inherent in the American right, or that it should be projected upon the right as a whole. I think it is just the result of this idea of there being a 'liberal establishment'. Now you could point to the people in government and say such a notion is ridiculous, but I think there is some element of truth in it. I think the hardcore right in the USA feels threatened by how much mainstream values have changed. Not so much on economic, but more social issues.

Of course, it silly when people rant about conspiracy theories with communists taking over, especially at a time when the welfare state is really on the backfoot and the free market is running riot (I mean, look at Britain now and in the 70's, America had the same revolution with Regan at the same time). But economic issues are always conflated with social issues when we are talking about grander ideologies, and it is true that there have been massive shifts in mainstream social attitudes that people feel threatened by.

Attitudes towards gays are one example. Immigration is another. We might have right-wing parties in power but no mainstream party really speaks out about immigration for fear of being branded racist. And all mainstream parties, even on the right, have adopted quite liberal and tolerant langauge when it comes to teh gays.

So I think this is why the American hardcore right feels alienated, and it is why they tend to be a bit more conspiratorial and extremist on a larger scale than the left.

[HoreTore]

Any argument containing religious stuff should be immediatly disregarded.

Take away those, and the people who don't support gay marriage is a clear minority. As the US is a strong and working democracy, this should mean that gay marriage should be legal all over the place.

Just remind the pastors what the five fingers said to the face

[Samurai Waki]

I was thinking the same thing, and considering I have a cousin whose fabulously gay and lives in New York City, I've heard all I needed to hear on the issue.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Next up, gay divorce.

[Strike For The South]

Haha... sigh... yeah. It's kind of funny when these same people complain about "radical Islam".

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[Askthepizzaguy]

I do think you'll find ideologically motivated hatred on both sides. Whenever an ideologue's political rivals score a win, it's immediately interpreted as a "loss" to the ideologue and their reaction is basically "burn in hell" you [insert epithet here].

In a world where there are only two viewpoints on anything, and all viewpoints always line up together nicely and neatly on one side or the other within an individual, then there are very clear enemies and whenever one side makes a gain, the other sides loses ground. I think viewing the world that way is ludicrous.

I look at gay marriage as an area where liberals (socially liberal / sexually liberated) and conservatives (less government intrusion) could actually agree... and further, I do not see this as a zero-sum game where advancing gay causes forces bad things to happen to those who "don't approve" of homosexuals. There will still be churches and preachers and Bibles when gay marriage is legalized. Nothing in society will change in any significant manner from the way it is now, with one key difference: millions of people are now feeling equal, free, and happy.

This is an example of something where one side can get what they want without taking anything away from the other side. It's less complicated than taxes. Leave gay people alone, and do your own thing. All sides win. No one is forcing anyone else to be gay. No one is saying churches must marry gays. No one is saying re-write the Bible.

There is no conflict. People have differences of opinion sometimes that don't even affect one another. I can LOVE pizza and someone can HATE pizza and it won't.... ever.... matter.....

Homosexuality can be thought of that way. Some people have a different preference that you might object to, but it doesn't harm you in any way. Let it go.

[InsaneApache]

Next up, gay divorce.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/3-things...-gay-marriage/

[Hosakawa Tito]

http://www.cracked.com/blog/3-things...-gay-marriage/

Good find IA.

My main problem with all of this has nothing to do with "gay marriage", does me no harm so good for them. The problem is that New York State is slurging into the whirlpool drain hole of fiscal insolvency and the governor & legislature are fiddling with this secondary issue. They don't want to really address the spending problem issues, government coruption/ethics, nanny state anti-business regulations, high taxes, failing school system stuff. Instead they kick the can down the road and get the cream puff feel good , getting the job done don't worry about the rest. Only in New York do politicians believe that enacting new legislation to allow public school systems to borrow a billion more dollars, with no say or imput from the taxpayers as mandate relief. Pass an ethics law with no teeth and needing the sanction of the political parties involved to even begin an investigation. Enact a property tax cap law that has so many loopholes and exclusions that it isn't worth the paper it's written on. This gay marriage law is just lipstick on the pig. Now they can go on summer vacation with a clear conscience firm in the belief that they did what's right for their own benefit once again.

[Fragony]

'After California's big defeat, the momentum seemed to stall for states legalizing same sex marriages, but now maybe New York will jump start it again.'

Isn't New York for America what Amsterdam is for the Netherlands, seen a bit like state within a state if you will

[Centurion1]

You mean the city?

Yeah it is almost its own entity because it is so large. They are referring to the state as a whole though which has a few major cities besides NYC

[Louis VI the Fat]

Good for New York State. This is the right thing to do. Gay marriage means better haircuts, theatre and interior decoration near where you live.

Modern, progressive, urban life is so far beyond homophobia its unreal. Although, in Europe, physically you are not half a city block removed from people who think gays ought to be ritually slaughtered. Oh well.

~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~

"You get to the point where you evolve in your life where everything isn't black and white, good and bad, and you try to do the right thing. You might not like that. You might be very cynical about that. Well, **** it, I don't care what you think. I'm trying to do the right thing. I'm tired of Republican-Democrat politics. They can take the job and shove it. I come from a blue-collar background. I'm trying to do the right thing, and that's where I'm going with this." -McDonald

McDonald for Republican cadidate!

So you don't like gays. Fine with me. But even if you do, then why not just leave 'em be, America is a free country. They're not doing you any harm.

~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~

I am glad America is continuing its path in moving forward into the 21th century from the 18th.

So am I!

Now if only Europe would follow suit. A similar bill did not make it past the French assembly last week. The right voted it down. Now it will be ages before we can join the ranks of civilised states.

[Fragony]

You mean the city?

Yeah it is almost its own entity because it is so large. They are referring to the state as a whole though which has a few major cities besides NYC

Didn't know that, what is major? Biggest city doesn't even have a million here. So fine with that

[Centurion1]

Uh albany, buffalo i guess.

Buffalo has about 260k while albany has about 300k.

The caital of NY state is actually albany not NYC.

[Major Robert Dump]

More work for this Private Investigator. I'm assuming gay people cheat just like the rest.

[Fragony]

Uh albany, buffalo i guess.

Buffalo has about 260k while albany has about 300k.

The caital of NY state is actually albany not NYC.

hehe that is a good one for Trivia

[Centurion1]

hehe that is a good one for Trivia

you will find that happens all the time frags because of the nature of america. While europe has well established historically rich obvious capitals america would often build a city, decide it was the capital then 100 years later have everyone living somewhere else.

California capital not LA, not San Fran, not SD its sacramento (still a large city)

Maryland Not baltimore..... annapolis

Florida not miami, pensacola, tampa, but talahasse.

It infuriates grade school children trying to associate the capitals of the fifty states with power and prestige the country over.

[Fragony]

you will find that happens all the time frags because of the nature of america. While europe has well established historically rich obvious capitals america would often build a city, decide it was the capital then 100 years later have everyone living somewhere else.

California capital not LA, not San Fran, not SD its sacramento (still a large city)

Maryland Not baltimore..... annapolis

Florida not miami, pensacola, tampa, but talahasse.

It infuriates grade school children trying to associate the capitals of the fifty states with power and prestige the country over.

Blame my euro-ignorance

[a completely inoffensive name]

I think the hardcore right in the USA feels threatened by how much mainstream values have changed. Not so much on economic, but more social issues.

Mainstream values have changed to be more accepting, less judgmental. If they feel as if this is bad or are threatened by that somehow, then they are living in the wrong century and should go back to the 1300s.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Blame my euro-ignorance

It's "Eurognorance".

Eurognorance.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Mainstream values have changed to be more accepting, less judgmental. If they feel as if this is bad or are threatened by that somehow, then they are living in the wrong century and should go back to the 1300s.

Rightly or wrongly what has actually happened is that the mainstream conception of "marriage" an an institution and it's purpose has changed.

The "traditional" concept of marriage as the means by which the sexually reproducutive relationship is legitimised and regulated has essentially ceased to exist, but no one wants to talk about it - everyone would rather just shouth about Gay Rights or Gay Evils, depending on your preference.

[Lemur]

Rightly or wrongly what has actually happened is that the mainstream conception of "marriage" an an institution and it's purpose has changed.

The "traditional" concept of marriage as the means by which the sexually reproducutive relationship is legitimised and regulated has essentially ceased to exist, but no one wants to talk about it - everyone would rather just shouth about Gay Rights or Gay Evils, depending on your preference.

I'd say the change in traditional marriage has far more to do with no-fault divorce and women's rights than anything to do with our queer friends. And let's not forget that "traditional" marriage is a relatively recent construction. That used to mean ploygamy and/or what we would consider incest. Read your OT, it's full of it. Furthermore, throughout the middle ages and the Renaissance, formal marriage was at least as much about property and power as anything else. That's what happens when you have venereal transmission of position and land.

Also, the notion that men are supposed to be faithful and not have whores, mistresses, office wives and travel wives is a relatively recent development.

Things change.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Mainstream values have changed to be more accepting, less judgmental. If they feel as if this is bad or are threatened by that somehow, then they are living in the wrong century and should go back to the 1300s.

See below...

I'd say the change in traditional marriage has far more to do with no-fault divorce and women's rights than anything to do with our queer friends. And let's not forget that "traditional" marriage is a relatively recent construction. That used to mean ploygamy and/or what we would consider incest. Read your OT, it's full of it. Furthermore, throughout the middle ages and the Renaissance, formal marriage was at least as much about property and power as anything else. That's what happens when you have venereal transmission of position and land.

Also, the notion that men are supposed to be faithful and not have whores, mistresses, office wives and travel wives is a relatively recent development.

Things change.

Remember, when we talk about American conservatives, we are being very vague. The small-government type folks have fairly mainstream, if not liberal social values - they are one type.

But then you also have the religious, usually Evanglical hardliners. There's not really anything 'conservative' about them. I think in a lot of ways the Evangelical movement captures the spirit of the radical Protestants that played such a big role in shaping the American identity. They are not really conservative in the sense they are trying to preserve the status-quo (or any recently lost status-quo). Maybe they are reactionary in that they have some sense of returning to a prior golden age. But then you wouldn't call an Islamist 'conservative' because they want to return to the days of the Caliphate.

No, I think that we should stop conflating the two types of groups people usually lump together as American conservatives, and recognise that the more religious elements are actually pretty radical.

And let's not forget that "traditional" marriage is a relatively recent construction. That used to mean ploygamy and/or what we would consider incest. Read your OT, it's full of it..

What is it with this gem and the internet. It should be completely discredited along the same lines as Godwin's law. There does seem to be some rule that whenever Christianity is discussed on this series of tubes, the probabilility that someone starts quoting the Mosaic law to Christians reaches 1.

Christians are not bound by the civil and ceremonial laws that Moses gave to the Israelites. I don't know why people think we are. Because the NT makes it very clear that we are not. Its a major part in the whole narrative of how Chrsitianity came about and what it means. Read Hebrews to see the significance of the civil/ceremonial laws.

The union of one man and one woman is not an arbitary legal contract (as PVC would I think argue), but a natural law instituted by God at creation. It is just one of those things that is natural to the human condition. Just remember what Jesus said to the saducees when they accused him of having false teachings on marriage - "Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives, but from the beginning it was not so".