• 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

liblady said:
i've seen them hashed out, and i have to say i don't agree with most of them. in fact, none of them.

there's an inherent desire to see oneself as superior, and the only way some people can accomplish that is to make someone else inferior.
Click to expand...

Hmmm I am as hard core as you get and that reason means nothing to me or to any of my Conservative friends........
 
Erod said:
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.
Click to expand...

How about a brother and sister, a father and daughter, etc in marriges without sex for the benefits provided.......How about a man and two women.....How about polygamysts?.........if you approve gay marriage you have to approve those kinds of unions.........
 
liblady said:
so did interracial marriage. btw, a goat can't consent.
Click to expand...

You insult black people when you use that example............African Americans are a race of people........Gays are not...........
 
lizzie said:
Is marriage a human right in your view? To me, it's more of a symbolic ceremonial rite, more aligned with religious activity, unless you are talking about the legal right to inherit money and/or other assets upon death.
Click to expand...

I meant the legal rights and benefits that go along with being married. I should have specified that.

I believe that the ceremonial aspect of a marriage should be between the two (or more) people getting married and any family/friends/religious institution/etc. that they wish to share the moment with them.
 
Navy Pride said:
How about a brother and sister, a father and daughter, etc in marriges without sex for the benefits provided.......How about a man and two women.....How about polygamysts?.........if you approve gay marriage you have to approve those kinds of unions.........
Click to expand...
sorry, there are reasons incest isn't legal.
 
Navy Pride said:
I think God will destroy the world before gays are a suitable alternate life style........He did it with Sodom and can do it again........We shall see but so far its going in the wrong direction for your side......More and more states like liberal ones like New York and California are saying no to Gay marriage........
Click to expand...

I'm not too afraid of your invisible friend ending the world for some reason.

Besides, isn't that was Jesus was for? So that people could be forgiven for their sins and god wouldn't have to send another flood or something to end the sinning?
 
liblady said:
sorry, there are reasons incest isn't legal.
Click to expand...

I said they would marry but sex would not be involved.....They would just marry for the benefits.............It has nothing to do with incest..............
 
molten_dragon said:
I'm not too afraid of your invisible friend ending the world for some reason.

Besides, isn't that was Jesus was for? So that people could be forgiven for their sins and god wouldn't have to send another flood or something to end the sinning?
Click to expand...

Good for you....you just keep thinking that way............
 
Goobieman said:
Once you decide that "man and woman" is no longer a fundamental paet of marriage, then there is no sound argument to limiti marriage to two people.
Click to expand...

I see no reason why marriage should only be limited to two people as long as all parties involved give their consent.
 
Erod said:
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.
Click to expand...

One issue at a time. If people want to bring up polygamy - let them. The debate here is not whether a man can get married to a goat. It's about whether a man can get married to another man. Stop diluting the ****ing issue with the same tired rhetoric.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Reading the bill itself is essential to forming an intelligent opinion on this story either way. Do you have a link to it?
 
liblady said:
so did interracial marriage. btw, a goat can't consent.
Click to expand...

Oh good, someone brought up interracial marriage, now anti-gm can bring up incest and this thread can fulfill it's destiny of becoming a cookie-cutter gay marriage thread like so many before it.
 
Navy Pride said:
Good for you....you just keep thinking that way............
Click to expand...

As far as doubting god's existence goes, I will continue to think that way until I see some evidence to the contrary.

As far as the part about Jesus, I may very well be wrong, I've never actually read the whole bible. If I am, please feel free to correct me.
 
Jerry said:
Oh good, someone brought up interracial marriage, now anti-gm can bring up incest and this thread can fulfill it's destiny of becoming a cookie-cutter gay marriage thread like so many before it.
Click to expand...
too late, already happened.
 
Navy Pride said:
I said they would marry but sex would not be involved.....They would just marry for the benefits.............It has nothing to do with incest..............
Click to expand...
i'm not going to discuss this further, it's pointless.
 
Jerry said:
Oh good, someone brought up interracial marriage, now anti-gm can bring up incest and this thread can fulfill it's destiny of becoming a cookie-cutter gay marriage thread like so many before it.
Click to expand...

Actually, it's already been brought up.

Navy Pride said:
How about a brother and sister, a father and daughter, etc in marriges without sex for the benefits provided.......How about a man and two women.....How about polygamysts?.........if you approve gay marriage you have to approve those kinds of unions.........
Click to expand...
 
Why is the government still trying to define the word "marriage"?

Why are people still putting forward bills that try to define the word "marriage"?

Why are people so friggin stupid when it comes to this issue?
 
molten_dragon said:
I meant the legal rights and benefits that go along with being married. I should have specified that.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification. I've heard the same response from several other people, and the reason I can't understand that position well is because I don't see where all these rights are that married people have as opposed to unmarried people. If one wants to leave all his/her personal assets to a loved one upon death, it's easy to provide for that with a will. If one wants to designate a specific person to be his/her medical power of attorney in the event of dire illness, that is easily done with a living will. There is no tax benefit to being married, and when there was, the benefit was in favor of those who were unmarried. Am I missing some benefits of being married in the legal sense that others are aware of?

Edited to add: The way it seems to me is that what gays really want is some type of societal approval that says they are "normal". My word usage is not meant to be offensive, and my personal thoughts on the issue is neutral. I'm not an activist for or against gay marriage rights, I just don't see evidence that the real issue is one of legality rather than social ideology. Maybe I'm wrong- it's just that what I see and what I hear are two different things.
 
Last edited:
Partisan said:
Very Good.....:)
Click to expand...

Excellent, The New York State Senate deserves many kudos.
Lets hope that this is the last we hear of this foolishness. The are many far more important problems that must be addressed.
education
crime
economics
 
Binary_Digit said:
Why is the government still trying to define the word "marriage"?

Why are people still putting forward bills that try to define the word "marriage"?

Why are people so friggin stupid when it comes to this issue?
Click to expand...

1. I think marriage has already been defined...Gays and Liberals are trying to change the definition...........

2. To stop gays and Liberals from changing the definition of marriage....

3. Can't answer that one............
 
lizzie said:
Thanks for the clarification. I've heard the same response from several other people, and the reason I can't understand that position well is because I don't see where all these rights are that married people have as opposed to unmarried people. If one wants to leave all his/her personal assets to a loved one upon death, it's easy to provide for that with a will. If one wants to designate a specific person to be his/her medical power of attorney in the event of dire illness, that is easily done with a living will. There is no tax benefit to being married, and when there was, the benefit was in favor of those who were unmarried. Am I missing some benefits of being married in the legal sense that others are aware of?

Edited to add: The way it seems to me is that what gays really want is some type of societal approval that says they are "normal". My word usage is not meant to be offensive, and my personal thoughts on the issue is neutral. I'm not an activist for or against gay marriage rights, I just don't see evidence that the real issue is one of legality rather than social ideology. Maybe I'm wrong- it's just that what I see and what I hear are two different things.
Click to expand...

I think they may already have this from most of our society(acceptance); I do not think they are "normal" any more than I am(anger management). They should not "marry", I should not be granted a gun permit.
Tolerance goes a long way.
 
lizzie said:
Thanks for the clarification. I've heard the same response from several other people, and the reason I can't understand that position well is because I don't see where all these rights are that married people have as opposed to unmarried people. If one wants to leave all his/her personal assets to a loved one upon death, it's easy to provide for that with a will. If one wants to designate a specific person to be his/her medical power of attorney in the event of dire illness, that is easily done with a living will. There is no tax benefit to being married, and when there was, the benefit was in favor of those who were unmarried. Am I missing some benefits of being married in the legal sense that others are aware of?

Edited to add: The way it seems to me is that what gays really want is some type of societal approval that says they are "normal". My word usage is not meant to be offensive, and my personal thoughts on the issue is neutral. I'm not an activist for or against gay marriage rights, I just don't see evidence that the real issue is one of legality rather than social ideology. Maybe I'm wrong- it's just that what I see and what I hear are two different things.
Click to expand...



They want their lifestyle accepted as a suitable alternate to a straight lifestyle and most people can not accept that.......I myself am for equal rights for all and I hink that can be accomplished through civil unions but like I said that is not good enough for the libs or a few gays because its a smoke screen..........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom