• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New York State Senate Votes Down Gay Marriage Bill

[mistermanimpersonation]

O HAI GAIS!

I'm Misterman. Sometimes I make good points, but other times I completely void any sense I make by jumping the gun to try and point out other people's flaws or mistakes. Hurr Durr.

K BAI GAIS!

[/mistermanimpersonation]
 
[mistermanimpersonation]

O HAI GAIS!

I'm Misterman. Sometimes I make good points, but other times I completely void any sense I make by jumping the gun to try and point out other people's flaws or mistakes. Hurr Durr.

K BAI GAIS!

[/mistermanimpersonation]

Don't be a jerk.
 
Reading the bill itself is essential to forming an intelligent opinion on this story either way. Do you have a link to it?

I think you ask too much.

Reading the article is essential to forming an intelligent opinion on the story either way:

Note what Navy omitted:

Senators who voted against the measure said the public was gripped by economic anxiety and remained uneasy about changing the state’s definition of marriage.

“Certainly this is an emotional issue and an important issue for many New Yorkers,” said Senator Tom Libous, the deputy Republican leader. “I just don’t think the majority care too much about it at this time because they’re out of work, they want to see the state reduce spending, and they are having a hard time making ends meet. And I don’t mean to sound callous, but that’s true.”
 
No it is most certainly not. Some gays already shove their lifestyles down our throats while some of them live in secret, and even more live open and without incident. It's not about a lifestyle it's about people's perceptions, on both sides, and not wanting to give any ground. Some gays feel entitled to the term marriage because they're whiney bitches who feel they've been wronged, (look how far that mindset got certain members of the Black community, nowhere) and Straight people feel like their way of life and the 'sanctity' of their 50%+ divorce rate is at stake.

This post sounds like it came from an angry, bigot, homophobe...

Go TROLL somewhere else.:2wave: Or come out of the closet. Tell your folks. You might be surprised how the react.

Dismissed, Trollster McTollstein.
 
This post sounds like it came from an angry, bigot, homophobe...

Go TROLL somewhere else.:2wave: Or come out of the closet. Tell your folks. You might be surprised how the react.

Dismissed, Trollster McTollstein.

Do you actually disagree that some gays feel that way? Note, not all gays, but SOME gays?

IMO, overly militant gays pushing for gay marriage do far more damage towards public opinion then anything the anti-gay marriage crowed can do.
 
I think you ask too much.

Well again, I've seen articles misrepresent the actual legislation to many times to trust any media at all anymore. IMO any opinion formed on anything less than the raw data is misinformed at best.
 
Well again, I've seen articles misrepresent the actual legislation to many times to trust any media at all anymore. IMO any opinion formed on anything less than the raw data is misinformed at best.

While that is a true point, a direct quote from a Republican there that suggests that the reason for failure of the bill was not because of dislike of gay marriage but because there were more important things to do is hardly in line with anything Navy has tried to push here. But I've come to expect that from Navy since 2003. One must always read further into whatever he argues. 99.99% of the time, it's nothing even close.
 
So if a man can marry a man, can a bi-sexual marry a man AND a woman? Why should he be forced to choose? How about two men and one woman? Why should there be a limit? Why not a goat? I mean, what business is it of mine if a man wants to marry a goat?

Sounds crazy, but so did gay marriage not too many years ago.

Whats funny is how many pro gay marriage people don't recognize this simple fact.

They immediately attack the underage marriage argument calling it sick when they don't even realize they just made a moral judgment on what they define as proper behavior in a society the exact same thing people who are against gay marriage do.

The multiple partner argument they have a harder time defending keeping that out but many still wont understand the connection you are making.

The only intellectually honest supporters of gay marriage are the ones who want to throw all moral judgments on marriage out the window and allow all alternative lifestyles the same "privilege" unless they are comfortable in the hypocrisy that their moral decision to only want gay marriage added is exactly the same moral decision those who are against gay marriage make.
 
I hope you guys realize that the best way to deal with a troll is to ignore them until they are banned by a moderator.

That is all.

Moderator's Warning:
Thank you. scottsoperson will not be with us for a few days. Please heed the advice above when/if he returns.
 
I think you ask too much.

Reading the article is essential to forming an intelligent opinion on the story either way:

Note what Navy omitted:
How did he omit it?
 
They immediately attack the underage marriage argument calling it sick when they don't even realize they just made a moral judgment on what they define as proper behavior in a society the exact same thing people who are against gay marriage do.

There are more than moral reasons for not allowing underage people to get married. Our legal system has decreed that until the age of 18, a person may not enter into a legal contract. And it's not just marriage, it's any legal contract. If you want to argue that that age should be lowered, then that's fine. As things stand now though, that's the only reason needed for not allowing people under 18 to get married.

The multiple partner argument they have a harder time defending keeping that out but many still wont understand the connection you are making.

Honestly, I have no problems at all with polygamy. If 5 people want to enter into a joint marriage, that's fine by me. Some of the laws regarding marriage rights and benefits would probably need to be reworked to take into account multiple partners, but I don't think that it would cause any huge problems.

The only intellectually honest supporters of gay marriage are the ones who want to throw all moral judgments on marriage out the window and allow all alternative lifestyles the same "privilege" unless they are comfortable in the hypocrisy that their moral decision to only want gay marriage added is exactly the same moral decision those who are against gay marriage make.

This is true. However, you have to keep in mind that there are valid reasons for not allowing certain marriages that aren't moral judgments. In two of the most common cases mentioned (people marrying underage and people marrying animals) the reason for not allowing them is because animals and underage people are not allowed to enter into a legal contract.
 
Whats funny is how many pro gay marriage people don't recognize this simple fact.

They immediately attack the underage marriage argument calling it sick when they don't even realize they just made a moral judgment on what they define as proper behavior in a society the exact same thing people who are against gay marriage do.

This is completely false. The basis for attacking the underage marriage advocacy is grounded in legal consent age that is already present. Further, it has a foundation in society's interest in protecting children from abusive relationships in that are dominated by age. It has nothing to do with a pure moral disapproval despite your attempt to color it as such.

The multiple partner argument they have a harder time defending keeping that out but many still wont understand the connection you are making.

WRONG. The multiple partner argument comes into play in that the marriage contract is binding between two people for the transfer of property rights and decisions as one entity. The inclusion of multiple partners into the marriage contract changes the very fabric of that contract to one of an incorporated entity with several parties sharing interest. And entirely different application of legal code comes into play that is not feasible when dealing with child custody, dissolution of the contract, etc.

The only intellectually honest supporters of gay marriage are the ones who want to throw all moral judgments on marriage out the window and allow all alternative lifestyles the same "privilege" unless they are comfortable in the hypocrisy that their moral decision to only want gay marriage added is exactly the same moral decision those who are against gay marriage make.

Utterly false, as I have shown.
 
How is it shoving anything down your throat for you to stay the hell out of other people's relationships?

I could understand your sentiment if you were being forced to gay marry someone, but you aren't. You are being asked to leave other people alone and not use the law to leverage your disapproval against them.

Because then it will be taught in school, and mentioned all over the media. "Kids, this here is Bob's husband, Jim." It'll be everywhere, all the time. It will be forced on kids as "perfectly normal" and "absolutely no different than your mommy and daddy."

How did teachers deal with Clinton's impeachment? We had classrooms all across America having to delicately discuss kids' curious questions about cum on a dress and cigars used as sex toys. Now look how oral sex has become common among 5th and 6th graders. Look at what we've become.
 
Another nail in the coffin of Gay Marriage Disney Dude...........


The 38-to-24 vote startled proponents of the bill and signaled that political momentum, at least right now, had shifted against same-sex marriage, even in heavily Democratic New York. It followed more than a year of lobbying by gay rights organizations, who steered close to $1 million into New York legislative races to boost support for the measure.

I see nothing positive in this decision.
It will happen eventually but I think it is sad they will have to wait longer to get what should have been a given from the beginning.
 
How did teachers deal with Clinton's impeachment? We had classrooms all across America having to delicately discuss kids' curious questions about cum on a dress and cigars used as sex toys. Now look how oral sex has become common among 5th and 6th graders. Look at what we've become.

:wow:

Are you saying Clinton and his indiscretions led to oral sex becoming common?

Gay marriage/homosexuality is brought up/taught in British Schools. It did in my school and in my younger siblings sex education. Hasn't turned me or them gay and/or mentally damaged us.
 
Last edited:
Because then it will be taught in school, and mentioned all over the media. "Kids, this here is Bob's husband, Jim." It'll be everywhere, all the time. It will be forced on kids as "perfectly normal" and "absolutely no different than your mommy and daddy."


I'd apologize for the fact that children might have to deal with real life despite their parents' attempts to shelter them from reality and impose bigotry...but I'm not sorry for that. I would apologize for the fact that all people might be treated equally and your moral disapproval won't amount to a hill of beans, as it should be. But then, I'm not sorry for that either.

How did teachers deal with Clinton's impeachment? We had classrooms all across America having to delicately discuss kids' curious questions about cum on a dress and cigars used as sex toys.

Back this up with links or it didn't happen.

Now look how oral sex has become common among 5th and 6th graders. Look at what we've become.

You will also need to show a causation between discussion of the Clinton sex scandal and 5th graders having oral sex. Good luck with that one.
 
:wow:

Are you saying Clinton and his indiscretions led to oral sex becoming common?

Gay marriage/homosexuality is brought up/taught in British Schools. It did in my school and in my younger siblings sex education. Hasn't turned me or them gay and/or mentally damaged us.

Among extremely young people, I think it played a role, yes.

Please don't use Britain as an example of anything. Your once great nation is irrelevent these days, other than that it will soon be predominantly Muslim. You've allowed your heritage, culture, and religious foundations to be destroyed by liberalism and socialism.
 
Back
Top Bottom