• 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!

[NY Gov.] Will Introduce Same-Sex Marriage Bill

Re: Governor to Submit Bill Legalizing Gay Marriage

Still could promote widely popular legislation so he doesn't tea-bagged whenever he goes home.

uhm I am not sure what you are saying here. I do no it's not an answer to my question:


Why does it take spine for an unpopular appointed governor who has no chance of being re-elected to do this?
 
It was never meant to improve marriage.

Then I have no interest in supporting it.

It was meant to expand the state recognition of marriage to another social group.

Since expanding marriage to that social group in no way improves marriage, I see no reason to support doing so.

Equality is the main factor.

Equality is not a factor at all, in any way what so ever. Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue. It never was.

I don’t see why this is so hard to understand. SCOTUS even ruled that women did not in fact have the right to vote, and so no claim of discrimination was valid. An amendment had to be made in order to ***create*** a woman’s right to vote, but before that point ‘a woman’s right to vote’ was not a civil rights issue either.

You can have a valid argument for the creation of gay-marriage while gay-marriage is not a civil rights issue. I have no respect for any pro-gm argument which insists that gay-marriage is about equality because all such arguments are ignorant of the law the history of the US.

Homosexual couples are looking for the same legal and social rights as heterosexual couples. To have their union be state recognized.

"Social rights"? WTF is are those?

There are "Basic Human Rights" (Fundimental rights) which even illegal aliens have, like the right to breath, and there are "Civil Rights" which only Citizens, like the right to vote.

There are no such "social rights" in the law and no court can give a remedy for any sociological inequality.

But thank you for pointing out that this is a sociological battle, thereby demolishing any notion that marriage is merely a "strictly legal contract".
 
Last edited:
Sucks to be in the minority, doesn't it?

It sure does. I wish more people could make clear posts like I can.

I further wish the Mod team would live up this "higher standard" they're supposed to, because then you might bother placing some substance or at least minimal effort into your average post, but then again, expecting people to follow their own rules is a minority view on this board, and I AM in the minority, as you pointed out.
 
....for gays to stop pursuing marriage or civil unions in any way.


Oh stop pouting Jerry. You should be delighted, the sooner gay marriage is widespread the sooner Jesus is going to descent from the sky with a sword protruding from his mouth to throw all non-believers in a lake of fire for eternity. :mrgreen:
 
Oh stop pouting Jerry. You should be delighted, the sooner gay marriage is widespread the sooner Jesus is going to descent from the sky with a sword protruding from his mouth to throw all non-believers in a lake of fire for eternity. :mrgreen:

Thank you for the feed back; it's good to know that I can still inspire people to show their true selves :2wave:
 
It sure does. I wish more people could make clear posts like I can.

I further wish the Mod team would live up this "higher standard" they're supposed to, because then you might bother placing some substance or at least minimal effort into your average post, but then again, expecting people to follow their own rules is a minority view on this board, and I AM in the minority, as you pointed out.

What the **** are you talking about?

You are staking out a position that the majority of the country disagrees with. Despite that, you act as if you're the only person who could possibly have any idea what's going on. Sorry, I don't buy it.
 
Personally, who gives a rip? It's ****ing New York, it's a sorry state anyway. Quite frankly, the conservatives here in american have already one. What victories has RightatNYC and his crowd have had? 3 states going on 4?(AND NONE of which have put it on referendum, pathetic cowards). The majority of states have gay marriage banned, including california, the most populous and arguably the most liberal state in the union, that's a victory in my book.

And yet, we are the minority opinion, LOLZ yea, right.
 
Last edited:
Personally, who gives a rip? It's ****ing New York, it's a sorry state anyway. Quite frankly, the conservatives here in american have already one.

?

What victories has RightatNYC and his crowd have had? 3 states going on 4?(AND NONE of which have put it on referendum, pathetic cowards).

All laws that aren't passed by referendum are cowardly? :rofl

And to clarify, I don't support the actions of the IA/MA/etc. courts to reinterpret their state constitutions in order to make gay marriage a constitutional right. I do think that states should pass laws allowing gay marriage in the proper fashion, like VT did.

And yet, we are the minority opinion, LOLZ yea, right.

Jerry's stance that gays should not have marriage rights or civil unions is the minority position.

Approximately 1/3 of people support full marriage, 1/3 support full civil unions, and 1/3 oppose both.

Civil Rights
 
Jerry's stance that gays should not have marriage rights or civil unions is the minority position.

Approximately 1/3 of people support full marriage, 1/3 support full civil unions, and 1/3 oppose both.

Civil Rights

And yet you still found a way to act like an ass with an off-the-cuff snipe instead of simply presenting data in an objective and civil manner.

Good job Mr. Higher Standard. I'd love to just put you on ignore but since you're immune it's up to you to fix your behavior.
 
And yet you still found a way to act like an ass with an off-the-cuff snipe instead of simply presenting data in an objective and civil manner.

Good job Mr. Higher Standard. I'd love to just put you on ignore but since you're immune it's up to you to fix your behavior.

Forgive me for not "presenting the data in an objective matter" like you have throughout this thread.
 
And yet you still found a way to act like an ass with an off-the-cuff snipe instead of simply presenting data in an objective and civil manner.

You mean like your "Gays don't deserve any rights because they are homos" attitude that you have presented?
 
Forgive me for not "presenting the data in an objective matter" like you have throughout this thread.

Right, because I'm a mod an therefore expected to live up to a higher standard per forum rules :roll: Tell me, what disciplinary action have you received for violating that rule? Nothing? I thought so.

You might try getting back on topic by placing your data in a relevant counter point to my post you originally delivered your quip to.
 
You mean like your "Gays don't deserve any rights because they are homos" attitude that you have presented?

That's one way to grossly misrepresent my position, sure.

You are at least consistent in your sophistry.
 
That's one way to grossly misrepresent my position, sure.

You are at least consistent in your sophistry.

You stated that the "right thing" is for gays to stop pushing for marriage as well as civil unions. What is your justification for that?
 
You stated that the "right thing" is for gays to stop pushing for marriage as well as civil unions. What is your justification for that?

First, context: That was a response to...
You mean like your "Gays don't deserve any rights because they are homos" attitude that you have presented?

This is not a position I have ever held. On many occasions I have pointed out that I firmly believe that Gays are fully entitled to be free from harassment, employment and housing discrimination, and should remain completely free to associate and cohabitate with whomever they choose.

Far from TheNextEra's assertion that I believe that gays are not entitled to any rights at all what so ever, I in fact support several gay rights.

It is only in marriage where I take any issue, and even then I do not actively oppose gay-marriage. I have never and do not intend to vote against it and I hold that neutral position for purely religious reasons.

On a cultural, sociological level, I object to gay-marriage.
Marriage is a behavior, and state sanctioning of any form of marriage is encouragement of that behavior.

Since my opinion is that homosexuality is the result of a biological error where the brain interprets the pheromones of the same gender as an opposite gender, it is my opinion that the practice of homosexuality and gay-marriage by extension is self destructive. I can not support state encouragement of self destructive behavior.

However, since there are children who can benefit from gay parents, neither can I oppose gay marriage.

I am unresolved on the issue.

My arguments on gay-marriage are my attempts to explore the issue further and hopefully arrive at a firm position.

At this time, the only resolution I see is for gays to simply stop perusing state support for their behavior, just as I think “right-to-die” avocets should simply stop perusing state support of suicide.
 
First, context: That was a response to...

No, it obviously wasn't, considering that that post came later than this:

Jerry said:
TheNextEra said:
The right solution is:
....for gays to stop pursuing marriage or civil unions in any way.

.

It is only in marriage where I take any issue, and even then I do not actively oppose gay-marriage. I have never and do not intend to vote against it and I hold that neutral position for purely religious reasons.

On a cultural, sociological level, I object to gay-marriage.
Marriage is a behavior, and state sanctioning of any form of marriage is encouragement of that behavior.

Since my opinion is that homosexuality is the result of a biological error where the brain interprets the pheromones of the same gender as an opposite gender, it is my opinion that the practice of homosexuality and gay-marriage by extension is self destructive. I can not support state encouragement of self destructive behavior.

What are you basing this opinion on? Considering that it's directly contradicted by pretty much all the scientific literature, I don't really give it much weight.

However, since there are children who can benefit from gay parents, neither can I oppose gay marriage.

I am unresolved on the issue.

My arguments on gay-marriage are my attempts to explore the issue further and hopefully arrive at a firm position.

At this time, the only resolution I see is for gays to simply stop perusing state support for their behavior, just as I think “right-to-die” avocets should simply stop perusing state support of suicide.

So because you can't figure out how you should come out, you don't think that states should be free to decide to grant civil unions or marriage rights to gay couples?
 
What are you basing this opinion on? Considering that it's directly contradicted by pretty much all the scientific literature, I don't really give it much weight.

My opinion is based on my interpretation of that literature.

The evidence shows a difference. I am calling that difference an error because the resulting behavior is incongruent with the function of that individual’s reproductive system (that's the nice way of saying "gay men are instinctively trying to impregnate each other in the ass", but I'm making some effort not to be to crude here).

The APA base’s it’s diagnostic criteria of a “disorder” on an individual’s ability to function day-to-day, whereas I base my argument on biological congruency. This is why I call it an “error” and not a “disorder”. The reproductive system is unique in that it is the one system any individual could live without, so it make sense that there would be some lesser form of Transexuality where an individual could function with the error.

So because you can't figure out how you should come out, you don't think that states should be free to decide to grant civil unions or marriage rights to gay couples?

Pro-GM doesn't think it should be a state issue either, so perhaps that's one aria where pro-gm and I actually agree.
 
My opinion is based on my interpretation of that literature.

The evidence shows a difference. I am calling that difference an error because the resulting behavior is incongruent with the function of that individual’s reproductive system (that's the nice way of saying "gay men are instinctively trying to impregnate each other in the ass", but I'm making some effort not to be to crude here).

The APA base’s it’s diagnostic criteria of a “disorder” on an individual’s ability to function day-to-day, whereas I base my argument on biological congruency. This is why I call it an “error” and not a “disorder”. The reproductive system is unique in that it is the one system any individual could live without, so it make sense that there would be some lesser form of Transexuality where an individual could function with the error.

You're entitled to think whatever you want, but I'm just saying that I give it no weight and don't think that there's anything to support it beyond your own feelings and beliefs.

Pro-GM doesn't think it should be a state issue either, so perhaps that's one aria where pro-gm and I actually agree.

"Pro-GM" is not a monolithic entity. If you'd read any of my posts in this thread, you'd see that I think it is most certainly a state issue (if not solely a private one) and that it should be governed by the various state legislatures.
 
You're entitled to think whatever you want, but I'm just saying that I give it no weight and don't think that there's anything to support it beyond your own feelings and beliefs.

So true, but my feelings and beliefs dictate my vote, which does carry some consequence, so you might not want to dismiss the feelings and beliefs of others so quickly.

"Pro-GM" is not a monolithic entity. If you'd read any of my posts in this thread, you'd see that I think it is most certainly a state issue (if not solely a private one) and that it should be governed by the various state legislatures.

Mainstream GM are taking the issue to SCOTUS just as mainstream PL are taking the issue to SCOTUS. It's the same strategy.
 
So true, but my feelings and beliefs dictate my vote, which does carry some consequence, so you might not want to dismiss the feelings and beliefs of others so quickly.

As I helpfully noted earlier, your stance is only shared by around 1/3 of the country. The other 2/3 of us don't need your vote to get it passed. All the marriage folks have to do is work on shifting the civil unioners a bit farther.

Mainstream GM are taking the issue to SCOTUS

Link?

just as mainstream PL are taking the issue to SCOTUS.

PL?
 
Back
Top Bottom