New York State Senate Votes Down Gay Marriage Bill

texmaster · Dec 4, 2009

molten_dragon said:
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.

You still did not give a reason why we chose that age other than it was a moral choice.

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.

I don't agree at all but I respect your honesty in that statement.

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.

But again you miss the point. You are falling back on another law to justify another. Putting animals aside, Children can have jobs which some require them signing legal contracts so that argument in preventing them wont work. Children make personal choices all the time.

It again comes back to a moral decision that society made.

texmaster · Dec 4, 2009

jallman said:
Where do you see a relationship between slavery and gay marriage being formed?

From your post when you argue against people who are against gay marriage

First of all, the 14th Amendment came well after them. And a lot has changed since their time. White people don't have a few blacks that they own running their errands for them anymore. We have automobiles and electricity and quick transferrence of information on a global scale. We have antibiotics and space travel, an understanding of psychology and genetics.

Shall we continue listing all these game changers?

Thats the argument you used.

jallman · Dec 4, 2009

texmaster said:
From your post when you argue against people who are against gay marriage

First of all, the 14th Amendment came well after them. And a lot has changed since their time. White people don't have a few blacks that they own running their errands for them anymore. We have automobiles and electricity and quick transferrence of information on a global scale. We have antibiotics and space travel, an understanding of psychology and genetics.

Shall we continue listing all these game changers?

Thats the argument you used.

And where in any of that do your see a similarity being drawn between gay marriage and slavery?

Dav · Dec 4, 2009

liblady said:
they fixed it.......now it's time to recognize that gays should be allowed to marry.

Read the 2nd sentence of my post.

jallman said:
Well first of all, it's now accepted that homosexuality doesn't come from disease, mental defect, or devils possessing a person.

It's not as accepted as you might think, and there's still a lot of uncertainty about it.

Also, being a homo isn't punishable by stoning or burning at the stake anymore. Sort of dropped that practice along with whipping "niggers" that talk back.

I'm not sure that was ever true. But yes, homosexuality itself isn't illegal anymore. Don't see how that changes how the 14th Amendment applies to gay marriage, though.

jallman · Dec 4, 2009

Dav said:
It's not as accepted as you might think, and there's still a lot of uncertainty about it.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find 10 people randomly sampled that believe demons make people into homos.

I'm not sure that was ever true.

Really? Technically, sodomy is still punishable by imprisonment in Texas. In Maine, it was punishable by hanging until the late 1800's. It wasn't stricken off the books in Virginia until the 80's.

Some of the old laws on the book are worth a read just for the entertainment factor.

But yes, homosexuality itself isn't illegal anymore. Don't see how that changes how the 14th Amendment applies to gay marriage, though.

Then you are being pointedly obtuse. If it was an illegal practice before and now there is nothing illegal about it, the logical progression is a discussion about whether or not the government should be discriminating in it's approval of different relationships. Further, with more and more evidence proving it's not really a choice, the same questions that were raised with any "group" are being raised with gays: what level of discrimination and separate treatment is acceptable under the US Constitution.

The answer with every other group has been a resounding "none".

jackalope · Dec 4, 2009

Dav said:
That did occur to many of them. ESPECIALLY the one who wrote the 14th amendment.

Our founders did not write the fourteenth amendment; the fourteenth amendment was not part of the Bill of Rights, but rather was passed after the Civil War, [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution"]in 1868[/ame].

There is no replacing 'the Constitution' with 'the Fourteenth Amendment'. The Fourteenth Amendment is part of the Constitution.

Dav · Dec 4, 2009

jallman said:
I think you'd be hard pressed to find 10 people randomly sampled that believe demons make people into homos.

Demons no. Mental defect and personal choice, yes.
And when I said there's still a lot of uncertainty about it, I meant the source of homosexuality in general.

Really? Technically, sodomy is still punishable by imprisonment in Texas. In Maine, it was punishable by hanging until the late 1800's. It wasn't stricken off the books in Virginia until the 80's.

Some of the old laws on the book are worth a read just for the entertainment factor.

I stand corrected.

Then you are being pointedly obtuse. If it was an illegal practice before and now there is nothing illegal about it, the logical progression is a discussion about whether or not the government should be discriminating in it's approval of different relationships.

There is a difference, though, between the government banning homosexual sex and the government granting marriage to two people of the same sex. Especially when the former doesn't change the definition of a practice that has existed for thousands of years.

Further, with more and more evidence proving it's not really a choice, the same questions that were raised with any "group" are being raised with gays: what level of discrimination and separate treatment is acceptable under the US Constitution.

The answer with every other group has been a resounding "none".

As I have said before, current marriage laws don't discriminate against gays. Most people just consider marriage by definition to be between a man and a woman, as it has always been defined. That definition makes a distinction based on gender, but neither gender is being presented as the victim here.

jackalope said:
Our founders did not write the fourteenth amendment; the fourteenth amendment was not part of the Bill of Rights, but rather was passed after the Civil War, in 1868.

There is no replacing 'the Constitution' with 'the Fourteenth Amendment'. The Fourteenth Amendment is part of the Constitution.

I know all of this. I included whoever wrote the Fourteenth Amendment as one of the people who wrote the Constitution because he wrote part of the Constitution. The fact that he did it later isn't relevant, since he still wrote it in a time where gay marriage wasn't even considered.

Erod · Dec 4, 2009

liblady said:
for the same reason it never occured to them that blacks should be considered equal.

Absolutely wrong. Adams was anti-slavery then and questioned the Christianity in treating blacks as they were. Even Jefferson, who had slaves his entire life, was openly conflicted about the inequality of blacks.

But in a new country at that time, slavery was the only economically viable way to build a country. England certainly did nothing to stop it in the colonies beforehand.

Erod · Dec 4, 2009

jallman said:
I dont believe it was even an idea that was addressed back then. I hardly think they had any opinion on it at all because it just wasn't a discussion to them.

Some things you just can't anticipate. Who then could have ever thought their descendants 15 generations later would concoct such a think as two men marrying each other.

jallman · Dec 4, 2009

Erod said:
Some things you just can't anticipate. Who then could have ever thought their descendants 15 generations later would concoct such a think as two men marrying each other.

I imagine when you stop believing things like witches sitting on babies' chests and sucking the life out of them is the cause of crib death, it opens all manner of possibilities for enlightenment.

Erod · Dec 4, 2009

jallman said:
I imagine when you stop believing things like witches sitting on babies' chests and sucking the life out of them is the cause of crib death, it opens all manner of possibilities for enlightenment.

Yep, that sounds about as bizarre as gay marriage. I'll give ya that.

Jerry · Dec 4, 2009

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

I'm not taking a position in your discussion here, but I recall a couple of my teachers asking us to keep our questions of Clinton's affair for the upcoming sex-ed class.

It wasn't a big deal, but it was something the student population was talking about and cracking jokes on. Looking back on it, the Clinton affair did seem to sexualize the day to day conversations more than they might have been otherwise, and that was something the teachers had to deal with.

While I don't think my teachers ever had to explain what a blow job was, there was an unusual level of sexualisation which had to be managed.

On balance, I don't think the average gay couple would have anywhere near the negative impact on children as Clinton did. Gay couples with children are, in my experience, relatively unheard of, whereas everyone knew who the President was. Unless the media follows every gay couple around with their 24 hour news cycle, I don't think the issue of gay-sex would have very much impact on the average student at all.

jallman · Dec 4, 2009

Jerry said:
I'm not taking a position in your discussion here, but I recall a couple of my teachers asking us to keep our questions of Clinton's affair for the upcoming sex-ed class.

It wasn't a big deal, but it was something the student population was talking about and cracking jokes on. Looking back on it, the Clinton affair did seem to sexualize the day to day conversations more than they might have been otherwise, and that was something the teachers had to deal with.

While I don't think my teachers ever had to explain what a blow job was, there was an unusual level of sexualisation which had to be managed.

OK, managed. But certainly not encouraged.

Jerry · Dec 4, 2009

jallman said:
OK, managed. But certainly not encouraged.

No no, certainly not encouraged, not even by the sex-ed instructor.

We actually had a fair sex-ed teacher who felt secure and free to talk about all manner of sex acts without any moral context for or against. She was pretty objective I think.

Imo, people who object to these sex-ed programs are objecting to the the absence of an agreeable moral context. As a christian conservative I would advise any such parent to enroll their child in a private school which will provide the moral context they proffer. I think that's fair.

misterman · Dec 4, 2009

Jerry said:
Imo it's the absence of a moral context which most people object to. As a christian conservative I would advise any such parent to enroll their child in a private school.

The reason there is an absence of moral content in public schools is because people have different moral standards. I don't want my kids getting taught morality by a government employee, do you? I don't need that, I can teach it at home. Why can't you just teach morality at home too?

Jerry · Dec 4, 2009

misterman said:
The reason there is an absence of moral content in public schools is because people have different moral standards. I don't want my kids getting taught morality by a government employee, do you? I don't need that, I can teach it at home. Why can't you just teach morality at home too?

I think one concern is that stating that one kind of union is no different than any other is a moral context.

I would like there to be no moral context in the public school, and that means not claiming that gay 'marriage is just as valid as any other kind of 'marriage just as it means not claiming that gay 'marriage is 'wrong'.

I would like the school to remain silent on the issue.

obvious Child · Dec 4, 2009

American said:
How did he omit it?

Did you even read his post? I know you didn't read the article.

"Another nail in the coffin of Gay Marriage Disney Dude."

Except that the actual text of the article as to why it failed is because there were more important things to do. That in no way logically supports his argument.

obvious Child · Dec 4, 2009

Laila said:
I see nothing positive in this decision

Really? Because in the article even the Republicans admit that the reason it did not pass was because there were more important things to worry about. That suggests that resistance against it is hardly what people like NP like to proclaim.

misterman · Dec 4, 2009

Jerry said:
I think one concern is that stating that one kind of union is no different than any other is a moral context.

But you said there was an absence of moral content. Apparently not.

In any event, what is being said exactly, right now in a public school, about this issue?

I would like there to be no moral context in the public school, and that means not claiming that gay 'marriage is just as valid as any other kind of 'marriage just as it means not claiming that gay 'marriage is 'wrong'.

I would like the school to remain silent on the issue.

I agree. I wouldn't want them to say gay marriage is, or isn't, morally valid.

molten_dragon · Dec 5, 2009

texmaster said:
You still did not give a reason why we chose that age other than it was a moral choice.

Actually, there are sound scientific reasons to not allow people to begin making adult decisions before a certain age (exactly when that age should be is a matter of some contention). Below is a quote from a website on brain development and a link to the same website.

Myelination of the frontal lobes is not complete until very late in adolescence. Some researchers estimate that frontal-lobe development continues until age 25 to 30. The regions in the frontal lobe which are responsible for judgment, planning, assessing risks, and decision-making are the last areas to finish developing.

http://www.fcs.uga.edu/ext/bbb/brainTimeAdolescence.php

texmaster said:
Putting animals aside, Children can have jobs which some require them signing legal contracts so that argument in preventing them wont work.

Actually, I quite agree with you here. There should be a single age of majority at which you can do anything that an adult can do. I don't like the idea of spreading it out over several years like we do now. I would even support making it non-age dependent if there was an accurate enough test of cognitive function and decision making skills.

Charles Martel · Dec 5, 2009

obvious Child said:
Really? Because in the article even the Republicans admit that the reason it did not pass was because there were more important things to worry about. That suggests that resistance against it is hardly what people like NP like to proclaim.

What you call resistance, I'd call opposition. And proclaims aside....same sex marriage is 0-31 in referendum and gets absolutely wiped out in blue states such as Hawaii and California, New York....a solid blue state...referenced in this thread.

I believe opposition is what NP proclaims, I believe it's clearly others that are still in denial. And as we both know, denial ain't no river in Egypt.

EpicDude86 · Dec 5, 2009

Charles Martel said:
denial ain't no river in Egypt.

haha I just used this a few days ago in another thread.

Kudos for silly phrase!

Dr_Patrick · Dec 5, 2009

Navy Pride said:
Another nail in the coffin of Gay Marriage Disney Dude...........

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/03/nyregion/03marriage.html

By JEREMY W. PETERS
December 2 2009

ALBANY — The New York State Senate decisively rejected a bill on Wednesday that would have allowed gay couples to wed, providing a major victory for those who oppose same-sex marriage and underscoring the deep and passionate divisions surrounding the issue

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 knew the moment I heard about this story that you would probably post a thread about it. Leave it to you to celebrate this. I think gay marriage still has a rough battle before it is made legal, which I fully expect it to eventually be. Society can't help but progress. Heck, look how far we've come since the early 80's when people were terrified of homosexuals and actually thought that they were the cause of AIDS. Now we are at the level of legitimately fighting for gay marriage. If you really think that a few instances of gay marriage being shot down like this will stop it dead in its tracks, you are sorely mistaken.

Navy Pride · Dec 5, 2009

Dr_Patrick said:
I knew the moment I heard about this story that you would probably post a thread about it. Leave it to you to celebrate this. I think gay marriage still has a rough battle before it is made legal, which I fully expect it to eventually be. Society can't help but progress. Heck, look how far we've come since the early 80's when people were terrified of homosexuals and actually thought that they were the cause of AIDS. Now we are at the level of legitimately fighting for gay marriage. If you really think that a few instances of gay marriage being shot down like this will stop it dead in its tracks, you are sorely mistaken.

Anyone that thinks that gay marriage is moving towards approval lives in fantasy land........Every time there is and election and gay marriage is on the ballot its shot down........When activist judges like in California approve it its shot down......When activist legislatures like in Maine approve it its shot down.....Every time the people get a chance to vote on it its shot down...........

As far as AIDS go in the beginning it was gay men disease...the problem is BI sexuals have crossed over and given it to straight men

Navy Pride · Dec 5, 2009

Dr_Patrick said:
I knew the moment I heard about this story that you would probably post a thread about it. Leave it to you to celebrate this. I think gay marriage still has a rough battle before it is made legal, which I fully expect it to eventually be. Society can't help but progress. Heck, look how far we've come since the early 80's when people were terrified of homosexuals and actually thought that they were the cause of AIDS. Now we are at the level of legitimately fighting for gay marriage. If you really think that a few instances of gay marriage being shot down like this will stop it dead in its tracks, you are sorely mistaken.

Anything to save the sanctity of marriage my left wing friend............

New York State Senate Votes Down Gay Marriage Bill

texmaster

Hippie Hater

texmaster

Hippie Hater

jallman

Dav

jallman

jackalope

Dav

Erod

Erod

jallman

Erod

Jerry

jallman

Jerry

misterman

Jerry

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater

misterman

molten_dragon

Anti-Hypocrite

Charles Martel

Well-known member

EpicDude86

Dr_Patrick

Androgyne

Navy Pride

Navy Pride