• 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 to Become the Sixth State to Legalize Gay Marriage

My gosh!

This is outrageous!!!!!

Giving Homosexuals the right to marry!

Next thing they'll wanna vote...
 
PeteEU said:
Yea, and the civilized world had this in the 20th century... well most of it. Hence.. welcome to the 20th century New York!
Click to expand...

Some of it, and very late. I will give you that they had it earlier than we have had it, and those guys really do need to have something they did better than the US.
 
PeteEU said:
Yea, and the civilized world had this in the 20th century... well most of it. Hence.. welcome to the 20th century New York!
Click to expand...

Actually...

Country-wide recognitionSame-sex marriage is legal in Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain and Sweden. In Mexico, same-sex marriages are only performed in Mexico City, but these marriages must be recognized by all Mexican states.[66] Israel does not recognize same-sex marriages performed on its territory, but recognizes same-sex marriages performed in foreign jurisdictions.
Click to expand...
 
AntePavelic said:
I have been reading these forums for quite some time now... But on this issue I must finally say something, being from NYC. Gay Marriage was bound to pass in NY, that was known, but the exemptions for religious/moral groups to openly refuse gays not only from have ceremonies performed BUT from using their facilities is quite powerful. New York State led the way for sure tonight... these groups can openly and LEGALLY refuse gays
Click to expand...

They could have done that anyways. All that bit was for was to pacify those that don't know the Constitution. Fact is that those groups always could refuse to marry anyone for any reason...or no reason at all. A Christian church refused to marry my wife and I just because we didn't go to thier church (my wifes mother did). All that crap about gays being able to force religions to marry them is and always was a bunch of horse crap.
 
Good for New York. The rest of the country will follow, but how quickly?
 
spud_meister said:
Just imagine these guys wearing wedding rings. ;)

tumblr_lluenwyneE1qka8fko1_500.jpg
Click to expand...

Gays are never fat pigs are they? Always portrayed as young 20 year olds with six-packs. :roll:
 
What is with all the harsh feelings towards this issue? Obviously our ELECTED officials think it's ok to be allowed, so people should really question their fuel for this bashing. I dont understand why people care so much anways, it has nothing to do with them, and usually its because he/she is in-secure with their own sexual orientation. If a gay man down the street from me wants to put a ring around another mans finger and sign a couple papers, power to them! Will America please stop with this out-dated religion based hatred that will lead nowhere but to death and suffering?


Now, I AGREE that allowing a gay couple to raise chilidren may not be the best thing, but its certainly is not going to alter their maturing into adults. It will not influence their sexual orientation, homosexuality is not a choice, your born that way. For example, did all of you wake up one day and ponder if you will be gay or straight? I sure as hell didnt, I just KNEW I was not gay.

Where it really gets difficult is when it comes to gay couples having daughters. Girls need mothers to teach and show proper ways for women to act and function in todays society. That is the only tricky issue in my opinion, but still should be allowed, because I dont know about you, but I always wanted to be the opposite of my parents, def. not the same.

That is all. G O D B L E S S A M E R I C A ! ! !
 
Last edited:
This is exactly how I feel this issue should be tackled. At the state level, since licensing of marriage is a state held power. Good for NY, and hopefully other states will follow suit at some time.

People need to understand that not all their fights need take place at D.C. I believe that if you want change, you begin with yourself. Be the change you want to happen, then pursue it as an activist in your community and then state. The federal government should be the last step. The courts are set up this way, and so too should legislation follow suit. By doing it the other way around, we give the federal government too much unnecessary power, and sacrifice degrees of individual and state autonomy.
 
I think this is a good thing. States should have the right to define marriage for themselves considering they are the ones that issue marriage licenses.
 
Hey, folks. Lay off Councilman. He's right. When people lose their morality, they begin buggering animals...... But wait!! Did buggering animals begin with gay rights? Nope, they sure didn't. But don't take my word for it. Ask Republican activist Neal Horseley, who was arrested for making terroristic threats against Elton John (one of those horrible immoral gay people). Horseley admitted on FOX News that he had sex with a mule when he was younger. He also had sex with watermelons.

Neal Horselley said:
When you grow up on a farm in Georgia, your first girlfriend is a mule.
Click to expand...

I know, I know, the first question you are going to ask is "Was it a male or a female mule?"


Why it was a female mule, of course. There is NOTHING queer about Neal Horseley. :mrgreen:
 
BDBoop said:
I started a thread in sex and sexuality about the documentary "For the Bible Tells Me So." Whether you support or oppose the LGBT community, you need to see this movie.
Click to expand...

So I just watched this movie. It is on Netflix for streaming if anyone is curious. It didn't show me anything new though. I think everything presented in that documentary, everyone has already seen / heard of. Or at least things similar to it. The little cartoon about facts about gay people, I am sure people have heard before. The rest is just stories of people who have a gay family member. Not to say this movie didn't make me close to tears at points, I just don't think I would spend another hour and a half of my life to rewatch it or suggest anyone watch it, if they have heard ANYTHING about the gay rights movement. It also does not really address people quoting scripture other than saying, "I read it differently". Don't be a literalist.

That being said, I am in support of gay marriage and am thrilled to hear the NY passed this bill.
 
Councilman said:
What is next, a new twist on puppy love? Oh wait there was the guy in Washington State who was caught doing a horse little more than a year ago.

Is that coming to a court near you?

We do have NABLA out there wanting to have sex with kids.

The Governor said he'll sign it now so that's a done deal.
Click to expand...

As a SSM opponent I celebrate NY here, because they further prove that marriage is a state issue, to be handled at the state level, not the federal level.

NY wants SSM, great, more power to them. My state happened to ban SSM at the constitutional level, and that's our right to do just as NY has the right to legalize it.
 
Last edited:
SypherAL said:
Now, I AGREE that allowing a gay couple to raise chilidren may not be the best thing, but its certainly is not going to alter their maturing into adults. It will not influence their sexual orientation, homosexuality is not a choice, your born that way. For example, did all of you wake up one day and ponder if you will be gay or straight? I sure as hell didnt, I just KNEW I was not gay.
Click to expand...

It's been proven that a homosexual couple raising kids is no different from that of a heterosexual couple raising kids.
 
Jerry said:
NY wants SSM, great, more power to them. My state happened to ban SSM at the constitutional level, and that's our right to do just as NY has the right to legalize it.
Click to expand...

you bring up an interesting point. should the Federal govt. MANDATE recognition of same-sex marriage for the whole nation?

Im not sure. States have the right to make different gun laws, different environmental laws, etc etc.

And as this is not a commerce issue, the Feds can't use the Commerce Clause.

All the Feds can do, is use the Equal Protection Clause.

honestly, I think a Federal law mandating recognition of SSM would not pass the Supreme Court. This may stay a state-by-state issue.
 
molten_dragon said:
Good for New York. The rest of the country will follow, but how quickly?
Click to expand...

I expect this issue to become a very strongly geographical one, perhaps not seen since slavery.

The Northeastern states, Mid-Atlantic states, some Midwestern states, and most Western states will approve SSM.

The South and Southwest, will keep SSM illegal.
 
Thunder said:
you bring up an interesting point. should the Federal govt. MANDATE recognition of same-sex marriage for the whole nation?

Im not sure. States have the right to make different gun laws, different environmental laws, etc etc.

And as this is not a commerce issue, the Feds can't use the Commerce Clause.

All the Feds can do, is use the Equal Protection Clause.

honestly, I think a Federal law mandating recognition of SSM would not pass the Supreme Court. This may stay a state-by-state issue.
Click to expand...

See that's exactly my point. Exactly.

If very anti-ssm states have to issue/honor SSM, then by those same legal arguments every pro-militant-gun-controle state has to honor my SD consealed weapons permit.

So, let's have some consistancy here. If everyone has to get onboard with SSM, then everyone has to get onboard with shal-issue concealed carry.
 
Jerry said:
See that's exactly my point. Exactly.

If very anti-ssm states have to issue/honor SSM, then by those same legal arguments every pro-militant-gun-controle state has to honor my SD consealed weapons permit.

So, let's have some consistancy here. If everyone has to get onboard with SSM, then everyone has to get onboard with shal-issue concealed carry.
Click to expand...

And, as one who FAR favors federal laws trumping state laws, I would agree with you. Concealed carry permits should be universal. Just as SSM should be.
 
Thunder said:
you bring up an interesting point. should the Federal govt. MANDATE recognition of same-sex marriage for the whole nation?

Im not sure. States have the right to make different gun laws, different environmental laws, etc etc.

And as this is not a commerce issue, the Feds can't use the Commerce Clause.

All the Feds can do, is use the Equal Protection Clause.

honestly, I think a Federal law mandating recognition of SSM would not pass the Supreme Court. This may stay a state-by-state issue.
Click to expand...

Full Faith and Credit Clause here is an example:

Tenth Circuit Invalidates Oklahoma Statute Barring Recognition of Out-of-State Adoptions by Same-Sex Couples. — Finstuen v. Crutcher, 496 F.3d 1139 (10th Cir. 2007).



Harvard Law Review: Tenth Circuit Invalidates Oklahoma Statute Barring Recognition of Out-of-State Adoptions by Same-Sex Couples. ? <i>Finstuen v. Crutcher</i>, 496 F.3d 1139 (10th Cir. 2007).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom