• 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

The problem for you is that all of that is moot once the Court finds an equal protection violation....and even if that doesn't occur...public opinion is shifting rapidly and those DOMA laws and state amendments can be easily voted out as they were voted in.

Actually, our Legislature went to the Court....asked what specific language to use so that the People's clear intent was known. If public opinion via a referendum or legislative measure makes same sex marriage legal, that's acceptable. What I don't want is for the Bench to Legislate, this needs to be an issue left for society to decide, our government doesn't define marriage for us, we the People define marriage, government governs with our consent.....not the other way around.

I just don't see public opinion shifting much either, in fact, it's getting absolutely clam baked in most referendums, i mean this this state was over 60% opposed.

Another issue that needs to be addressed here, it's often assumed people are "ignorant"...or some unknown "fear" grips them when making this decision upon entering their ballot or deciding this through representation. That's absolute poppycock. This happens to be one of the easiest and clearest decision one can make. We're all familiar with marriage, we've nearly all experienced it, we know it's value to our society. And the electorate can easily make this decision through referendum, there is no ignorance, there is no fear. And the simple fact is...even in deep blue states, same sex marriage is contemplated.....voted on...and crushed in referendum, states like California 57%+ against, many red states well over 60% against. Easily read, easily seen, clear as bell, we vote no. and I'm not afraid to inform that will be reality, for our lifetimes anyway.
 
Last edited:
Many are ignorant within our society, which is why progress is slow. I think it is inevitable, though. I can see your point, but I don't think gay marriage would fall under that "dangerous" category.

No, the guy next door is very happy with his husband, it doesn't bother me at all.

I will say this, they throw a great party, and are more civil then many of the other a-holes in this town, but I am in the south, so I just go with the flow...
 
I witnessed a federal DOMA law and an amendment to my State's Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

I personally don't think Navy or myself have anything to worry about, not in this lifetime anyway.

Uh-huh. Bet just ten or so years ago you thought you'd never see it in a single state.
 
As are you if you think this issue is just going to go away because it isn't going through in a few states. It will keep going until it is made legal, and it will be. Many people thought that interracial marriage wouldn't go through, but look what happened. Society progresses, and will continue to do so.

Yeah it went through in Maine and California until the people spoke and it was banned, in fact in any state where a vote was allowed it was defeated big time................
 
Uh-huh. Bet just ten or so years ago you thought you'd never see it in a single state.

Bet ten years ago you would have bet on a better record than 0-31 in referendum.:cool:
 
Uh-huh. Bet just ten or so years ago you thought you'd never see it in a single state.

It has never been approved when a vote by the people was involved...............Only when activist judges or legislatures were involved..........
 
It has never been approved when a vote by the people was involved...............Only when activist judges or legislatures were involved..........

I don't know about that, but it doesn't matter one bit. It's happening.

Bet the racists in the South didn't think desegregation would happen in their lifetime either. They sure complained that it was "activist judges" instead of the will of the people too.
 
FOR THE LIKES OF LIBERALS LIKE MURTHA, KERRY AND DURBIN:

"IF YOU CAN'T STAND BEHIND OUR TROOPS FEEL FREE TO STAND IN FRONT OF THEM."

You do realize that Murtha and Kerry are both decorated veterans, right?

:rolleyes:
 
They are also treasonous bastards.

Uh-huh.

You have fun with that.

Bet you don't have the cajones to say it to their faces though.
 
WARNING: EXTREME CYNICISM AHEAD -

An observation on the occasion that sparked this debate is that the Gay Rights folks spent big bucks to elect legislatures to pass this bill. It was defeated by a comfortable margin. If you wish to be really cynical then you start to think - what if it had passed? Then the NY Senators who did not just get re-elected with nice contributions would probably lose potential future contributions based on this issue. So . . . the ones who took the money vote yes, some others vote yes to show their support for future gay rights contributions and votes, and the ones that still have 5 years to re-election help defeat it so they can milk it in the future too.

Back to name calling now . . .
 
WARNING: EXTREME CYNICISM AHEAD -

An observation on the occasion that sparked this debate is that the Gay Rights folks spent big bucks to elect legislatures to pass this bill. It was defeated by a comfortable margin. If you wish to be really cynical then you start to think - what if it had passed? Then the NY Senators who did not just get re-elected with nice contributions would probably lose potential future contributions based on this issue. So . . . the ones who took the money vote yes, some others vote yes to show their support for future gay rights contributions and votes, and the ones that still have 5 years to re-election help defeat it so they can milk it in the future too.

Back to name calling now . . .

That's some extreme cynicism you got there. Pretty unrealistic too.
 
Yeah it went through in Maine and California until the people spoke and it was banned, in fact in any state where a vote was allowed it was defeated big time................

And yet you ignore the fact that it has come quite far in the last 20 years. Do you honestly think that it will stop dead in its tracks now?
 
That's some extreme cynicism you got there. Pretty unrealistic too.

Perhaps, but if you look at the Civil Rights movement, they have passed all of the laws they can to become equal under the law but their politicians are still acting as if they are an opressed minority. Or as Rev. J. Jackson stated: "It took the US electing its first black president to expose just how racist it still is."

So perhaps it is overly cynical (and I believe it is) but it could be realistic too.
 
Yeah it went through in Maine and California until the people spoke and it was banned, in fact in any state where a vote was allowed it was defeated big time................

What do you consider big time?

4.2%? 6%? 40%?

If you think that 4.2% was "big time" then I guess you think Obama whooped McCain eh?

While I fully realize you ignore all fact that contradict your positions, gay marriage bans are steadily declining in margins.
 
Actually, our Legislature went to the Court....asked what specific language to use so that the People's clear intent was known. If public opinion via a referendum or legislative measure makes same sex marriage legal, that's acceptable. What I don't want is for the Bench to Legislate, this needs to be an issue left for society to decide, our government doesn't define marriage for us, we the People define marriage, government governs with our consent.....not the other way around.

I just don't see public opinion shifting much either, in fact, it's getting absolutely clam baked in most referendums, i mean this this state was over 60% opposed.

Another issue that needs to be addressed here, it's often assumed people are "ignorant"...or some unknown "fear" grips them when making this decision upon entering their ballot or deciding this through representation. That's absolute poppycock. This happens to be one of the easiest and clearest decision one can make. We're all familiar with marriage, we've nearly all experienced it, we know it's value to our society. And the electorate can easily make this decision through referendum, there is no ignorance, there is no fear. And the simple fact is...even in deep blue states, same sex marriage is contemplated.....voted on...and crushed in referendum, states like California 57%+ against, many red states well over 60% against. Easily read, easily seen, clear as bell, we vote no. and I'm not afraid to inform that will be reality, for our lifetimes anyway.


Your post misses one big point. The US Constitution was created with the understanding that some rights/privileges are too important to be put to a popular vote. Its not about "legislating from the bench" its about ensuring that the Constitutional guarantee of Equal protection under the laws is respected and upheld.
 
It has never EVER been proven to be genetic in even 60% of any study that looked at homosexuality in general.

Since the 60% is just something you made up, we can toss that to the side that you can't back up your own ****.

It has also never EVER been proven that it isn't genetic.

Its lost in every single state its been voted on.

You are going to have to face that as well.

And 30 years ago, it wasn't even put to a vote. Now it is. It's called progression. Your anti-gay marriage side is losing ground each decade. You are going to have to face that fact.
 
who is going to make a straight person marry a gay person? until that happens, nothing is being IMPOSED on anyone.


No one said anything about being forced to marry a gay person. What is being imposed is the redefinition of the institution of marriage and, by extension, the American family. Neither institution is the exclusive property of the left such that they may do with them as they please.
 
to be fair, fear and loathing.

what other defensible reasons could there be?

Well, it's pretty simple. Marriage is a social, religious and legal institution that is constructed around the natural and exclusive sexual relationship between one adult male and one adult female. The obvious benefit of this sexual exclusivity that is grounded in social norms, religious convention and common law is primarily to the children created by this union. Since gays cannot produce children, a homosexual relationship, exclusive or not, serves no purpose for which the definition of marriage ought to be changed.
 
Since gays cannot produce children, a homosexual relationship, exclusive or not, serves no purpose for which the definition of marriage ought to be changed.

Well then, old people and people that cannot have children shouldn't be allowed to marry according to your archaic logic.

Sorry but the whole, marriage is for creating children is not a valid reason to exclude a couple from marriage.
 
Neither institution is the exclusive property of the left such that they may do with them as they please.

And neither institution is the exclusive property of the right such that they can decide what changes and what doesn't.
 
Since the 60% is just something you made up, we can toss that to the side that you can't back up your own ****.

It has also never EVER been proven that it isn't genetic.

So

#1 You can't prove its genetic

#2 You can't even prove a genetic link in even 60% of homosexuals.

Got it.

Thanks.

And 30 years ago, it wasn't even put to a vote. Now it is. It's called progression. Your anti-gay marriage side is losing ground each decade. You are going to have to face that fact.

0-31 with 2 losses in the biggest year Democrats have had in an election in decades.

You are going to have to face that fact.

BTW, your pathetic attempt to claim because it hasn't been disproven as genetic somehow validates your claim is only another sign of desperation.

What about bi sexuals? What about the people who marry, have kids, then "turn gay". Are you going to claim they are genetic too? :rofl
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom