|
Title: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: Joe Biden 2020 on May 28, 2008, 10:36:06 PM In another sickening move, Gov. David Paterson (D-NY) just announced within the last hour that the state of New York would now recognize gay marriages.
I must say that I am VERY disappointed and deeply saddened by this. I support civil unions, but I do not and will never support or recognize a same-sex marriage. This makes 3 states I could never live in (Massachusetts, California, and now New York). Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: bullmoose88 on May 28, 2008, 10:42:05 PM In another sickening move, Gov. David Paterson (D-NY) just announced within the last hour that the state of New York would now recognize gay marriages. I must say that I am VERY disappointed and deeply saddened by this. I support civil unions, but I do not and will never support or recognize a same-sex marriage. This makes 3 states I could never live in (Massachusetts, California, and now New York). What did same sex marriage ever do to you? But please...stay in Oklahoma...better for everyone. Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: Joe Biden 2020 on May 28, 2008, 10:48:10 PM In another sickening move, Gov. David Paterson (D-NY) just announced within the last hour that the state of New York would now recognize gay marriages. I must say that I am VERY disappointed and deeply saddened by this. I support civil unions, but I do not and will never support or recognize a same-sex marriage. This makes 3 states I could never live in (Massachusetts, California, and now New York). What did same sex marriage ever do to you? But please...stay in Oklahoma...better for everyone. It just goes against everything I believe. Um... what is that last statement supposed to mean? To be honest, I take it as an insult. Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: Meeker on May 28, 2008, 10:54:14 PM You can't live in a state that recognizes same-sex marriage? Seems a little extreme. And bigoted.
Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: Meeker on May 28, 2008, 10:58:16 PM And anyways, Patterson isn't saying that the state is going to start issuing same-sex marriage licenses, just that they're going to recognized same-sex marriages that occur in other places. And if that's the type of place that you can't live in, then there's a whole lot more than just those three places you can cross off the list.
Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: memphis on May 28, 2008, 11:00:07 PM I really don't see how they could come to any other conclusion given the full faith and credit clause. I get the feelings that the pro equal marriage people don't want to press this point b/c it would certainly increase support for an amendment to the US constitution. Still, it seems inevitable that sooner or later somebody is going to challenge this.
Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: Ban my account ffs! on May 28, 2008, 11:01:01 PM In another sickening move, Gov. David Paterson (D-NY) just announced within the last hour that the state of New York would now recognize gay marriages. I must say that I am VERY disappointed and deeply saddened by this. I support civil unions, but I do not and will never support or recognize a same-sex marriage. This makes 3 states I could never live in (Massachusetts, California, and now New York). What did same sex marriage ever do to you? But please...stay in Oklahoma...better for everyone. It just goes against everything I believe. Um... what is that last statement supposed to mean? It's okay. I think evangelical Christians are less human than the rest of us. They're just weakminded sheep looking for a shepherd. They just go against everything I believe. In fact, I think the government should discourage evangelical Christianity through passive discrimination... no Evangelicals in the military.. they might offend the other "normal" people and try to spread their undesirable religion.. and two Evangelical Christians should not be able to get married... it's just wrong. I mean, I have no good reason other than I just believe it is unnatural. Of course everything I just said is ludicrous... but I see it as no different than opposing gay marriage. Like Ellen said.. gay marriage is like womens' and civil rights. It's the same fight every time. And the conservatives opposed to gay marriage will say "it's not at all like civil rights or womens' rights"... just like the conservatives opposed to civil rights said "it's nothing like womens' rights"... and the process goes on and on and on. You know what goes against everything I believe in? Watching people suffer from the totally unnecessary hate rooted in the "beliefs" of people like you. Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: Sam Spade on May 28, 2008, 11:04:16 PM And anyways, Patterson isn't saying that the state is going to start issuing same-sex marriage licenses, just that they're going to recognized same-sex marriages that occur in other places. They can't do that without changing statute (which strangely enough presents a lot of problems in a state like NY, go figure). And of course, the Gov's change in designation will be challenged through the courts as well. Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: Boris on May 28, 2008, 11:04:46 PM This makes 3 states I could never live in (Massachusetts, California, and now New York). So what country would you move to if every state were to legalize gay marriage? Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: Smash255 on May 28, 2008, 11:05:40 PM Good job Patterson
Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: Sam Spade on May 28, 2008, 11:05:50 PM I really don't see how they could come to any other conclusion given the full faith and credit clause. I get the feelings that the pro equal marriage people don't want to press this point b/c it would certainly increase support for an amendment to the US constitution. Still, it seems inevitable that sooner or later somebody is going to challenge this. I suspect the full faith and credit clause argument is a dead argument based on precedent. Equal protection always struck me as the stronger route - through sex discrimination. Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: Meeker on May 28, 2008, 11:08:23 PM And anyways, Patterson isn't saying that the state is going to start issuing same-sex marriage licenses, just that they're going to recognized same-sex marriages that occur in other places. They can't do that without changing statute (which strangely enough presents a lot of problems in a state like NY, go figure). And of course, the Gov's change in designation will be challenged through the courts as well. I think that is what they're doing... http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/nyregion/29marriage.html?hp I may be misunderstanding the legal wording though Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: A18 on May 28, 2008, 11:10:50 PM I really don't see how they could come to any other conclusion given the full faith and credit clause. I get the feelings that the pro equal marriage people don't want to press this point b/c it would certainly increase support for an amendment to the US constitution. Still, it seems inevitable that sooner or later somebody is going to challenge this. It isn't clear what form of recognition you have in mind. It is utterly clear, however, that neither the original meaning of the Full Faith and Credit Clause, nor modern Supreme Court precedent, provides any basis for thinking that a traditional-marriage state would have to generally recognize out-of-state gay marriages. Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: Sam Spade on May 28, 2008, 11:14:58 PM And anyways, Patterson isn't saying that the state is going to start issuing same-sex marriage licenses, just that they're going to recognized same-sex marriages that occur in other places. They can't do that without changing statute (which strangely enough presents a lot of problems in a state like NY, go figure). And of course, the Gov's change in designation will be challenged through the courts as well. I think that is what they're doing... http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/nyregion/29marriage.html?hp I may be misunderstanding the legal wording though Basically, it's a directive to agencies to recognize same-sex marriage. As mentioned by the article, the interesting problem will arise when those same-sex marriages end up (say in divorce) and in conflict with NY statute as interpreted by the courts, which specifically defines marriage between a man and a woman. And I still expect the original declaration to get a court challenge. I personally don't think its the smart move. Either pass it through the legislature (which probably doesn't have the votes, not to mention the Senate will stop it totally) or not at all. This is kind of like taking into through the back door (no pun intended) and will do a nice job of pissing off the Catholic church, for starters. Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: Joe Biden 2020 on May 28, 2008, 11:15:37 PM In another sickening move, Gov. David Paterson (D-NY) just announced within the last hour that the state of New York would now recognize gay marriages. I must say that I am VERY disappointed and deeply saddened by this. I support civil unions, but I do not and will never support or recognize a same-sex marriage. This makes 3 states I could never live in (Massachusetts, California, and now New York). What did same sex marriage ever do to you? But please...stay in Oklahoma...better for everyone. It just goes against everything I believe. Um... what is that last statement supposed to mean? It's okay. I think evangelical Christians are less human than the rest of us. They're just weakminded sheep looking for a shepherd. They just go against everything I believe. In fact, I think the government should discourage evangelical Christianity through passive discrimination... no Evangelicals in the military.. they might offend the other "normal" people and try to spread their undesirable religion.. and two Evangelical Christians should not be able to get married... it's just wrong. I mean, I have no good reason other than I just believe it is unnatural. Of course everything I just said is ludicrous... but I see it as no different than opposing gay marriage. Like Ellen said.. gay marriage is like womens' and civil rights. It's the same fight every time. And the conservatives opposed to gay marriage will say "it's not at all like civil rights or womens' rights"... just like the conservatives opposed to civil rights said "it's nothing like womens' rights"... and the process goes on and on and on. You know what goes against everything I believe in? Watching people suffer from the totally unnecessary hate rooted in the "beliefs" of people like you. I have never expressed "hatred" for gays and lesbians. I've got two friends who are gay. I just won't throw the Bible out the window and support gay marriage. I believe so strongly in the Bible that I cannot support gay marriage. Marriage is an institution designed by God for a man and a woman. I cannot in good conscience support a measure that goes against that. I totally understand there are people who don't believe in the Bible, or don't believe in that part of the Bible. That's fine. If my gay friends wanted to marry someone of their own gender, then I would walk to the civil union table with them, but I cannot and will not walk with them to the marriage ceremony. It doesn't mean I don't love them, I just love my God more. By the way, the remark about not being able to live in those three states was a sarcastic statement. I apologize for it being taken the wrong way. I'm sorry if you think all Southern Baptist Christians are "bigoted". To be honest, I'd rather be called a "bigot" then to be called a "Bible compromiser". Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: Хahar 🤔 on May 28, 2008, 11:20:22 PM BO, it's no different here than it was a week ago. Except it's not as hot. California really isn't a bad place.
On a more serious note, I understand where you're coming from. But I don''t agree. If you don't believe it's consistent with the Bible, don't marry gays. But other people should be allowed to do what they want. They can be acountable for it after they die. That's how I feel. Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: Meeker on May 28, 2008, 11:23:28 PM In another sickening move, Gov. David Paterson (D-NY) just announced within the last hour that the state of New York would now recognize gay marriages. I must say that I am VERY disappointed and deeply saddened by this. I support civil unions, but I do not and will never support or recognize a same-sex marriage. This makes 3 states I could never live in (Massachusetts, California, and now New York). What did same sex marriage ever do to you? But please...stay in Oklahoma...better for everyone. It just goes against everything I believe. Um... what is that last statement supposed to mean? It's okay. I think evangelical Christians are less human than the rest of us. They're just weakminded sheep looking for a shepherd. They just go against everything I believe. In fact, I think the government should discourage evangelical Christianity through passive discrimination... no Evangelicals in the military.. they might offend the other "normal" people and try to spread their undesirable religion.. and two Evangelical Christians should not be able to get married... it's just wrong. I mean, I have no good reason other than I just believe it is unnatural. Of course everything I just said is ludicrous... but I see it as no different than opposing gay marriage. Like Ellen said.. gay marriage is like womens' and civil rights. It's the same fight every time. And the conservatives opposed to gay marriage will say "it's not at all like civil rights or womens' rights"... just like the conservatives opposed to civil rights said "it's nothing like womens' rights"... and the process goes on and on and on. You know what goes against everything I believe in? Watching people suffer from the totally unnecessary hate rooted in the "beliefs" of people like you. I have never expressed "hatred" for gays and lesbians. I've got two friends who are gay. I just won't throw the Bible out the window and support gay marriage. I believe so strongly in the Bible that I cannot support gay marriage. Marriage is an institution designed by God for a man and a woman. I cannot in good conscience support a measure that goes against that. I totally understand there are people who don't believe in the Bible, or don't believe in that part of the Bible. That's fine. If my gay friends wanted to marry someone of their own gender, then I would walk to the civil union table with them, but I cannot and will not walk with them to the marriage ceremony. It doesn't mean I don't love them, I just love my God more. By the way, the remark about not being able to live in those three states was a sarcastic statement. I apologize for it being taken the wrong way. I'm sorry if you think all Southern Baptist Christians are "bigoted". To be honest, I'd rather be called a "bigot" then to be called a "Bible compromiser". Do you also condone selling daughters into slavery? The Bible says it's A-ok in Exodus 21:7. Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: Verily on May 28, 2008, 11:25:42 PM In another sickening move, Gov. David Paterson (D-NY) just announced within the last hour that the state of New York would now recognize gay marriages. I must say that I am VERY disappointed and deeply saddened by this. I support civil unions, but I do not and will never support or recognize a same-sex marriage. This makes 3 states I could never live in (Massachusetts, California, and now New York). You can't ever live in Rhode Island or New Mexico as well :) Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: Alcon on May 28, 2008, 11:28:40 PM I don't understand the vitriol. If you don't consider them marriages, consider them badly-named tax breaks. Do you normally get this offended when terminology is mis-applied because of religious disagreements? If you were Jewish, would you oppose any government subsidy of those who raise pork commercially, because that would be government recognition of a religious sin?
That was the crappy analogy, but still, seriously. The objection here is really just over the government calling something something, when your religion says that something isn't something? Maybe the institution of marriage is sacred; is the word "marriage" that sacred? Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: Хahar 🤔 on May 28, 2008, 11:30:24 PM I don't understand the vitriol. If you don't consider them marriages, consider them badly-named tax breaks. Do you normally get this offended when terminology is mis-applied because of religious disagreements? If you were Jewish, would you oppose any government subsidy of those who raise pork commercially, because that would be government recognition of a religious sin? It's banned in Israel, IIRC. Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: Smash255 on May 28, 2008, 11:50:19 PM And anyways, Patterson isn't saying that the state is going to start issuing same-sex marriage licenses, just that they're going to recognized same-sex marriages that occur in other places. They can't do that without changing statute (which strangely enough presents a lot of problems in a state like NY, go figure). And of course, the Gov's change in designation will be challenged through the courts as well. I think that is what they're doing... http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/nyregion/29marriage.html?hp I may be misunderstanding the legal wording though Basically, it's a directive to agencies to recognize same-sex marriage. As mentioned by the article, the interesting problem will arise when those same-sex marriages end up (say in divorce) and in conflict with NY statute as interpreted by the courts, which specifically defines marriage between a man and a woman. And I still expect the original declaration to get a court challenge. I personally don't think its the smart move. Either pass it through the legislature (which probably doesn't have the votes, not to mention the Senate will stop it totally) or not at all. This is kind of like taking into through the back door (no pun intended) and will do a nice job of pissing off the Catholic church, for starters. The problem is in the State Sneate. It clearly has enough votes in the assembly and passed last year 85-61. Since then it has been stalled in the Senate where Majority leader Joe Bruno has refused to bring the bill up for a vote. Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: Sam Spade on May 28, 2008, 11:58:01 PM And anyways, Patterson isn't saying that the state is going to start issuing same-sex marriage licenses, just that they're going to recognized same-sex marriages that occur in other places. They can't do that without changing statute (which strangely enough presents a lot of problems in a state like NY, go figure). And of course, the Gov's change in designation will be challenged through the courts as well. I think that is what they're doing... http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/nyregion/29marriage.html?hp I may be misunderstanding the legal wording though Basically, it's a directive to agencies to recognize same-sex marriage. As mentioned by the article, the interesting problem will arise when those same-sex marriages end up (say in divorce) and in conflict with NY statute as interpreted by the courts, which specifically defines marriage between a man and a woman. And I still expect the original declaration to get a court challenge. I personally don't think its the smart move. Either pass it through the legislature (which probably doesn't have the votes, not to mention the Senate will stop it totally) or not at all. This is kind of like taking into through the back door (no pun intended) and will do a nice job of pissing off the Catholic church, for starters. The problem is in the State Sneate. It clearly has enough votes in the assembly and passed last year 85-61. Since then it has been stalled in the Senate where Majority leader Joe Bruno has refused to bring the bill up for a vote. 85-61 passage in the assembly means that its going to need more than the Senate changing parties to pass, which is kind of my point, although Bruno is definitely holding it up. Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: King on May 29, 2008, 01:12:16 AM BO, it's no different here than it was a week ago. Except it's not as hot. California really isn't a bad place. On a more serious note, I understand where you're coming from. But I don''t agree. If you don't believe it's consistent with the Bible, don't marry gays. But other people should be allowed to do what they want. They can be acountable for it after they die. That's how I feel. EVERYTHING IS FINE??? Haven't you noticed all the homosexuals abducting and brutally sodomizing innocent children and livestock throughout the state in PUBLIC PARKS... AND LIBRARIES? The Church was right! This is terrible! TERRIBLE! ;) Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: Aizen on May 29, 2008, 01:35:52 AM oh my good golly god
this madness has got to stop the moral fiber of this country is breaking apart Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: dead0man on May 29, 2008, 01:36:16 AM What did same sex marriage ever do to you? But please...stay in Oklahoma...better for everyone. It just goes against everything I believe. Um... what is that last statement supposed to mean? To be honest, I take it as an insult. I have never expressed "hatred" for gays and lesbians. I've got two friends who are gay. I just won't throw the Bible out the window and support gay marriage. I believe so strongly in the Bible that I cannot support gay marriage. Marriage is an institution designed by God for a man and a woman. I cannot in good conscience support a measure that goes against that. I totally understand there are people who don't believe in the Bible, or don't believe in that part of the Bible. That's fine. If my gay friends wanted to marry someone of their own gender, then I would walk to the civil union table with them, but I cannot and will not walk with them to the marriage ceremony. It doesn't mean I don't love them, I just love my God more. I'm sorry if you think all Southern Baptist Christians are "bigoted". To be honest, I'd rather be called a "bigot" then to be called a "Bible compromiser". I don't even care if gay people can get married or not, personally, I think they should be working towards civil unions. What would be wrong with gay people having a civil union being recognized by the state and then having a ceremony where they get "married". I don't understand why the govt is in the business of "marriage" in the first place, why should two married people have different tax obligations compared to two other random people? But bottom line, the right in this country is way off base on this one. Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: Eraserhead on May 29, 2008, 02:06:19 AM Paterson is certainly living up to his reputation as a massive freedom fighter.
As for Okie, please worry about your own issues and stop trying to force your subjective view of morality on other people. Gay marriage isn't going to kill anyone or rape any babies. Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: exopolitician on May 29, 2008, 03:48:17 AM /moar wins
Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on May 29, 2008, 04:58:32 AM Funny, I consider giving people full legal recongition to be the moral thing to do.
Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: Franzl on May 29, 2008, 06:22:23 AM To be perfectly honest, what the bible says or does not say should have absolutely no relevance.
If you believe that God does not like gay marriage, then do not marry a gay, it's basically that simple. I consider it extremely immoral and hateful to impose your religious beliefs on others. Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck on May 29, 2008, 09:06:32 AM In another sickening move, Gov. David Paterson (D-NY) just announced within the last hour that the state of New York would now recognize gay marriages. I must say that I am VERY disappointed and deeply saddened by this. I support civil unions, but I do not and will never support or recognize a same-sex marriage. This makes 3 states I could never live in (Massachusetts, California, and now New York). What did same sex marriage ever do to you? But please...stay in Oklahoma...better for everyone. It just goes against everything I believe. Um... what is that last statement supposed to mean? To be honest, I take it as an insult. And everything you believe goes against some of the basic principles of our country and freedom itself. Stay in Oklahoma. Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: Joe Biden 2020 on May 29, 2008, 10:24:24 AM Wow. This is so much fun. This is exactly the kind of response I desired. I win.
I just don't see how kindly expressing my belief in the Bible to be shoving it down someone's throat. Am I supposed to remain silent about the Bible? Sorry, No Can Do. Just because I am a Christian who believes so strongly in God's Word does not make me a bigot as some of you may be implying. If you still consider me a bigot, WHO CARES!!!!! And, no, I will not stay in Oklahoma. I will be free to go anywhere my God takes me. Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: jesmo on May 29, 2008, 10:36:18 AM Who is this other fag friend you have, bushoklahoma?
Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: Joe Biden 2020 on May 29, 2008, 10:38:55 AM Who is this other fag friend you have, bushoklahoma? My network administrator from the Boston camp last year. He will be in Atlanta with me for three weeks, then go back to Boston from there. He is a student at Penn State. Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: Meeker on May 29, 2008, 10:47:19 AM Just because I am a Christian who believes so strongly in God's Word does not make me a bigot as some of you may be implying. No one has said that. We're calling you a bigot because you're twisting a gospel of love and acceptingness to rationalize your subconscious anti-gay hatred and then we when we call you on it you just plug your ears and go "LALALALA I LOVE JESUS AND JESUS HATED GAYS TOO". Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: Joe Biden 2020 on May 29, 2008, 10:58:47 AM Just because I am a Christian who believes so strongly in God's Word does not make me a bigot as some of you may be implying. No one has said that. We're calling you a bigot because you're twisting a gospel of love and acceptingness to rationalize your subconscious anti-gay hatred and then we when we call you on it you just plug your ears and go "LALALALA I LOVE JESUS AND JESUS HATED GAYS TOO". Ok... Point taken... Let's put this another way, a more correct way. I have friends who are gay men and I have known and worked with lesbian women. I don't care for their lifestyle, but I accept them as men and women and as creations of the Almighty God. It is my job and, more than that, my honor to love them just like I would my straight friends. The only thing I cannot do, and have a good conscience about it, is condone their marriage should they want to. I won't stop them, and I will still be their friend, but don't expect me to be in the wedding audience. I do support civil unions, however (which took me a long time to get to that point). I must say, that counting, I actually have three friends who are in the GLBT community. The third friend is a guy from high school is actually a cross-dresser/transsexual now. Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: 7,052,770 on May 29, 2008, 11:16:01 AM It's funny how Baptists will pick apart little snippets of the Bible to justify discriminating against gays, but then ignore other snippets that say things like you must kill a man for working on the Sabbath or growing a beard, or condone selling your daughters into slavery.
Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: Franzl on May 29, 2008, 11:23:01 AM Just because I am a Christian who believes so strongly in God's Word does not make me a bigot as some of you may be implying. No one has said that. We're calling you a bigot because you're twisting a gospel of love and acceptingness to rationalize your subconscious anti-gay hatred and then we when we call you on it you just plug your ears and go "LALALALA I LOVE JESUS AND JESUS HATED GAYS TOO". Ok... Point taken... Let's put this another way, a more correct way. I have friends who are gay men and I have known and worked with lesbian women. I don't care for their lifestyle, but I accept them as men and women and as creations of the Almighty God. It is my job and, more than that, my honor to love them just like I would my straight friends. The only thing I cannot do, and have a good conscience about it, is condone their marriage should they want to. I won't stop them, and I will still be their friend, but don't expect me to be in the wedding audience. I do support civil unions, however (which took me a long time to get to that point). I must say, that counting, I actually have three friends who are in the GLBT community. The third friend is a guy from high school is actually a cross-dresser/transsexual now. that all sounds good, but then why would the legality of gay marriage in a state prevent you from moving there, as you said in a previous post? Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: Alcon on May 29, 2008, 11:38:39 AM Ok... Point taken... Let's put this another way, a more correct way. I have friends who are gay men and I have known and worked with lesbian women. I don't care for their lifestyle, but I accept them as men and women and as creations of the Almighty God. It is my job and, more than that, my honor to love them just like I would my straight friends. The only thing I cannot do, and have a good conscience about it, is condone their marriage should they want to. I won't stop them, and I will still be their friend, but don't expect me to be in the wedding audience. I do support civil unions, however (which took me a long time to get to that point). I must say, that counting, I actually have three friends who are in the GLBT community. The third friend is a guy from high school is actually a cross-dresser/transsexual now. You're still ignoring the issue. You're this offended over what you see as a mis-application of the word "marriage"? Because if you support civil unions, that must be the only issue. In effect, you support equal rights anyway, so what you're offended by is the government using a term you see as having theological connotations, the wrong way. Is that really a big deal? Your Church, and you, are not being forced to recognize the term "marriage." Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: Adam Griffin on May 29, 2008, 11:58:57 AM Why do Christians CapitaliZe so Many words That do Not need CapitaliZation?
Anywho, the function of the government is to provide for the people, in an unbiased fashion. F**k religious morals, f**k the Bible, and most importantly f**k Christianity; never has a religion brought so much death, devastation, war, and hate and yet somehow is supposed to pave the path to a perfect world. Secular morality is key in government in order to preserve human rights, point blank. Empathy might be a good thing to have in this situation. If I said that Christians shouldn't be allowed to get married because all they are going to do is taint the image of "true" love and raise their children to be little ugly, bigot Christians, I'm sure that view would not be appreciated, nor would that opinion be shared by everyone. Sometimes we need to just keep our mouths shut when it comes to the feelings and rights of other individuals. If there is a god of any kind, I guarantee you that he's not human, therefore none of us should tell others what they cannot do when it does nothing to harm another person. Besides, the Christian faith clearly states what will happen to the world: it's gonna end. Seems like all the true Christians would want all of these "bad things" to go ahead and happen so that nobody else would have to suffer going through life as an imperfect mortal. Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on May 29, 2008, 12:03:17 PM This thread's a hoot. Dodgy arguments *and* comically obvious hypocrisy!
Anywho, the function of the government is to provide for the people, in an unbiased fashion. F**k religious morals, f**k the Bible, and most importantly f**k Christianity; Funny definition of "unbiased" there. Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: Adam Griffin on May 29, 2008, 12:07:32 PM This thread's a hoot. Dodgy arguments *and* comically obvious hypocrisy! Anywho, the function of the government is to provide for the people, in an unbiased fashion. F**k religious morals, f**k the Bible, and most importantly f**k Christianity; Funny definition of "unbiased" there. But I'm not in the government, am I? Therefore I'll say how I feel, but I don't expect the government to start burning Bibles or castrating Christians, nor would I want them to, if only for the simple fact that if it can happen to one group of people it can happen to everybody. Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: Sam Spade on May 29, 2008, 01:35:14 PM This thread's a hoot. Dodgy arguments *and* comically obvious hypocrisy! Anywho, the function of the government is to provide for the people, in an unbiased fashion. F**k religious morals, f**k the Bible, and most importantly f**k Christianity; Funny definition of "unbiased" there. Yea, the "intolerance" on this thread is interesting, not to mention highly amusing. Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: Flying Dog on May 29, 2008, 04:11:24 PM Why do Christians CapitaliZe so Many words That do Not need CapitaliZation? Anywho, the function of the government is to provide for the people, in an unbiased fashion. F**k religious morals, f**k the Bible, and most importantly f**k Christianity; never has a religion brought so much death, devastation, war, and hate and yet somehow is supposed to pave the path to a perfect world. Secular morality is key in government in order to preserve human rights, point blank. Empathy might be a good thing to have in this situation. If I said that Christians shouldn't be allowed to get married because all they are going to do is taint the image of "true" love and raise their children to be little ugly, bigot Christians, I'm sure that view would not be appreciated, nor would that opinion be shared by everyone. Sometimes we need to just keep our mouths shut when it comes to the feelings and rights of other individuals. If there is a god of any kind, I guarantee you that he's not human, therefore none of us should tell others what they cannot do when it does nothing to harm another person. Besides, the Christian faith clearly states what will happen to the world: it's gonna end. Seems like all the true Christians would want all of these "bad things" to go ahead and happen so that nobody else would have to suffer going through life as an imperfect mortal. Yeah well f**k you, buddy! Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: JSojourner on May 29, 2008, 04:39:07 PM Good for Governor Patterson. It was the Christian thing to do.
Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on May 29, 2008, 04:45:51 PM Why do Christians CapitaliZe so Many words That do Not need CapitaliZation? Anywho, the function of the government is to provide for the people, in an unbiased fashion. F**k religious morals, f**k the Bible, and most importantly f**k Christianity; never has a religion brought so much death, devastation, war, and hate and yet somehow is supposed to pave the path to a perfect world. Secular morality is key in government in order to preserve human rights, point blank. Empathy might be a good thing to have in this situation. If I said that Christians shouldn't be allowed to get married because all they are going to do is taint the image of "true" love and raise their children to be little ugly, bigot Christians, I'm sure that view would not be appreciated, nor would that opinion be shared by everyone. Sometimes we need to just keep our mouths shut when it comes to the feelings and rights of other individuals. If there is a god of any kind, I guarantee you that he's not human, therefore none of us should tell others what they cannot do when it does nothing to harm another person. Besides, the Christian faith clearly states what will happen to the world: it's gonna end. Seems like all the true Christians would want all of these "bad things" to go ahead and happen so that nobody else would have to suffer going through life as an imperfect mortal. Yeah well f**k you, buddy! Even though I'm not a Christian, I agree with Flem. Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: Robespierre's Jaw on May 29, 2008, 04:49:46 PM My respect for Governor Patterson keeps on climbing, and climbing and climbing. It seems like he has the Midas touch, something surprising for a blind Governor. Sorry I had to say it. Magnificent news and onwards to victory in 2010!
Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: Franzl on May 29, 2008, 04:50:14 PM Good for Governor Patterson. It was the Christian thing to do. Yes! Absolutely correct! Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: Joe Biden 2020 on May 29, 2008, 05:08:51 PM Just because I am a Christian who believes so strongly in God's Word does not make me a bigot as some of you may be implying. No one has said that. We're calling you a bigot because you're twisting a gospel of love and acceptingness to rationalize your subconscious anti-gay hatred and then we when we call you on it you just plug your ears and go "LALALALA I LOVE JESUS AND JESUS HATED GAYS TOO". Ok... Point taken... Let's put this another way, a more correct way. I have friends who are gay men and I have known and worked with lesbian women. I don't care for their lifestyle, but I accept them as men and women and as creations of the Almighty God. It is my job and, more than that, my honor to love them just like I would my straight friends. The only thing I cannot do, and have a good conscience about it, is condone their marriage should they want to. I won't stop them, and I will still be their friend, but don't expect me to be in the wedding audience. I do support civil unions, however (which took me a long time to get to that point). I must say, that counting, I actually have three friends who are in the GLBT community. The third friend is a guy from high school is actually a cross-dresser/transsexual now. that all sounds good, but then why would the legality of gay marriage in a state prevent you from moving there, as you said in a previous post? It wouldn't, I was being sarcastic with that statement. Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: Sbane on May 29, 2008, 05:53:17 PM Bush oklahoma I do not understand why you must impose your beliefs on others. Like you said you believe literally in the bible and thus cannot support gay marriage and that is fine. But if the government gives someone a marriage license, it does not mean you endorsed it. The only way you would commit the "sin" of gay marriage is by actually committing the act and it looks like the chances of that are low in your case. See I am a Hindu and we are supposed to not eat beef. But does that mean that I run around screaming at people eating cows that they are sinners and they are going to hell? No, I would not even do that in India. I do not impose my religious values(or lack off) on anyone and I wish you would not do that either.
Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: The Mikado on May 29, 2008, 05:55:18 PM In another sickening move, Gov. David Paterson (D-NY) just announced within the last hour that the state of New York would now recognize gay marriages. I must say that I am VERY disappointed and deeply saddened by this. I support civil unions, but I do not and will never support or recognize a same-sex marriage. This makes 3 states I could never live in (Massachusetts, California, and now New York). What did same sex marriage ever do to you? But please...stay in Oklahoma...better for everyone. It just goes against everything I believe. Um... what is that last statement supposed to mean? To be honest, I take it as an insult. Well, if you don't like gay marriage, don't get one. ;) Seriously, how does someone else's marriage threaten yours? You can still have your marriage in a church with your pastor. Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: War on Want on May 29, 2008, 06:07:14 PM Why do Christians CapitaliZe so Many words That do Not need CapitaliZation? Anywho, the function of the government is to provide for the people, in an unbiased fashion. F**k religious morals, f**k the Bible, and most importantly f**k Christianity; never has a religion brought so much death, devastation, war, and hate and yet somehow is supposed to pave the path to a perfect world. Secular morality is key in government in order to preserve human rights, point blank. Empathy might be a good thing to have in this situation. If I said that Christians shouldn't be allowed to get married because all they are going to do is taint the image of "true" love and raise their children to be little ugly, bigot Christians, I'm sure that view would not be appreciated, nor would that opinion be shared by everyone. Sometimes we need to just keep our mouths shut when it comes to the feelings and rights of other individuals. If there is a god of any kind, I guarantee you that he's not human, therefore none of us should tell others what they cannot do when it does nothing to harm another person. Besides, the Christian faith clearly states what will happen to the world: it's gonna end. Seems like all the true Christians would want all of these "bad things" to go ahead and happen so that nobody else would have to suffer going through life as an imperfect mortal. Yeah well f**k you, buddy! Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: Tetro Kornbluth on May 29, 2008, 07:32:47 PM Christianity is mainly being used to justify the rationale behind the anti-gay marriage crusade, same with many other cultural fads. Such as using the bible to justify eugenics, anti-semitism and etc. The logic comes first than the bible.
However in the current enviornment, OMG JEBUS!!111 is all the anti-gay marriage groups have and all they are, if only they could admit that their opposition is mainly derived from cultural often irreligious (but historic) positions. Or is that just another dodgy arguement, eh, Al? Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: King on May 29, 2008, 09:06:29 PM To be fair, I've never met a homosexual who has stayed in a relationship longer than a month and having lived in the Bay Area, CA and Santa Fe, NM, I have met my fair share.
Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on May 29, 2008, 09:26:48 PM Frankly we need to get the state out of what is a religious issue and have it no longer recognize marriages of any sort.
Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: The Mikado on May 29, 2008, 09:48:25 PM To be fair, I've never met a homosexual who has stayed in a relationship longer than a month and having lived in the Bay Area, CA and Santa Fe, NM, I have met my fair share. Really? There was a lesbian couple living across the street from my grandparents who had been together for decades. My grandmother used to invite them over for tea. (Yes, my grandmother was of the "invite people over for tea" generation) Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: King on May 29, 2008, 10:21:52 PM To be fair, I've never met a homosexual who has stayed in a relationship longer than a month and having lived in the Bay Area, CA and Santa Fe, NM, I have met my fair share. Really? There was a lesbian couple living across the street from my grandparents who had been together for decades. My grandmother used to invite them over for tea. (Yes, my grandmother was of the "invite people over for tea" generation) Now that I think about it, I do know two lesbian couples who have been together for years. It's the males I know that can't stay together very long. Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: Ebowed on May 29, 2008, 10:28:28 PM http://fstdt.com/fundies/comments.aspx?q=40121
Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: jesmo on May 30, 2008, 01:36:48 AM http://fstdt.com/fundies/comments.aspx?q=40121 And.... people wonder why I am a Hillary supporting, populist-conservative Republican ::) Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: dead0man on May 30, 2008, 01:49:28 AM To be fair, I've never met a homosexual who has stayed in a relationship longer than a month and having lived in the Bay Area, CA and Santa Fe, NM, I have met my fair share. Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: riceowl on May 30, 2008, 07:23:55 AM haha...something i remember from a new york times magazine article about a month ago...
What does a gay man bring on a second date? What second date? What does a lesbian bring on a second date? A U-Haul! not that it's true...i just haven't gotten to a third date... :P Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: Sbane on May 30, 2008, 04:49:08 PM To be fair, I've never met a homosexual who has stayed in a relationship longer than a month and having lived in the Bay Area, CA and Santa Fe, NM, I have met my fair share. Really? There was a lesbian couple living across the street from my grandparents who had been together for decades. My grandmother used to invite them over for tea. (Yes, my grandmother was of the "invite people over for tea" generation) Now that I think about it, I do know two lesbian couples who have been together for years. It's the males I know that can't stay together very long. You nailed it right on the head. Men of any sexual orientation have a hard time staying faithful. Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on May 31, 2008, 11:36:37 AM To be fair, I've never met a homosexual who has stayed in a relationship longer than a month and having lived in the Bay Area, CA and Santa Fe, NM, I have met my fair share. Really? There was a lesbian couple living across the street from my grandparents who had been together for decades. My grandmother used to invite them over for tea. (Yes, my grandmother was of the "invite people over for tea" generation) Now that I think about it, I do know two lesbian couples who have been together for years. It's the males I know that can't stay together very long. I stayed with a couple, guys my Aunt worked with in Australia, in SF. They've been together for 12 years. Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on May 31, 2008, 11:54:23 AM The reactions and reaction to reactions in this thread highlight a really important element here.
I don't believe Okie is a bad person because of his beliefs, although the "I respect them as creations of the almighty" bothered me a bit. You should respect other because they're human beings like you. Equally... actually maybe a bit more, the comments which blast out the idea that this suggests faith of any kind is bad is equally stupid. I consider myself a very strong and committed secularist, but I acknowledge the important role that faith plays in people's lives and society. Most of it, isn't bad. Charities who feed and clothe the homeless and support struggling families regardless of faith, are so incredibly important. Not the least being the comfort it bring, whether you believe it or not. I went to church and sunday school, did the whole shebang up to being able to take communion when I was 16. But it was always on my terms, if I found something in the bible I didn't like, I said so, I didn't try to convince myself it was right. A lot of it comes from the biblical tradition of the chruch you come from - the Southern Baptists have a world-wide reputation for being hardline direct word of God poeple, I managed to get by in the last breath of mainstream liberalism in the Sydney Anglican archdiocese. I was brought up believing that the bible was written over a long period of time, my many different writers, edited and translated and re-translated over and over again. So there's nothing wrong with treating some things as not being fact, and considering things like historical context in reading things. The bible is no different from other religious work in its make up, Jesus actually specifies when something is parable or not. But the bible is likely full parable and metaphore. Picking and choosing biblical precedent on matters like homosexuality, when ignoring slavery and corporal and capital punishment - is not treating the bible as a complete work - if you can accept that society has developed to realise the slavery and extreme physical punishment is wrong, and the bible was written in a certain time, to the standards of that society... then why is this issue probably one of the last old-testament issues (yes it's mentioned in the NT... but not to the specificity of books like Lev.) that survives? Even if that's the case, it doesn't lessen it's teachings or it's message. Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: DownWithTheLeft on May 31, 2008, 12:13:44 PM Every day I get the feeling more and more that Patterson will not seek another term
RUDY '10! Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: ?????????? on May 31, 2008, 12:48:30 PM This thread's a hoot. Dodgy arguments *and* comically obvious hypocrisy! Anywho, the function of the government is to provide for the people, in an unbiased fashion. F**k religious morals, f**k the Bible, and most importantly f**k Christianity; Funny definition of "unbiased" there. But I'm not in the government, am I? Therefore I'll say how I feel, but I don't expect the government to start burning Bibles or castrating Christians, nor would I want them to, if only for the simple fact that if it can happen to one group of people it can happen to everybody. You're a disgusting scumbag and an ignorant ass to boot. Not surprising coming from your side of the political spectrum. Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: Sbane on May 31, 2008, 12:51:04 PM This thread's a hoot. Dodgy arguments *and* comically obvious hypocrisy! Anywho, the function of the government is to provide for the people, in an unbiased fashion. F**k religious morals, f**k the Bible, and most importantly f**k Christianity; Funny definition of "unbiased" there. But I'm not in the government, am I? Therefore I'll say how I feel, but I don't expect the government to start burning Bibles or castrating Christians, nor would I want them to, if only for the simple fact that if it can happen to one group of people it can happen to everybody. You're a disgusting scumbag and an ignorant ass to boot. Not surprising coming from your side of the political spectrum. This thread's a hoot. Dodgy arguments *and* comically obvious hypocrisy! Anywho, the function of the government is to provide for the people, in an unbiased fashion. F**k religious morals, f**k the Bible, and most importantly f**k Christianity; Funny definition of "unbiased" there. But I'm not in the government, am I? Therefore I'll say how I feel, but I don't expect the government to start burning Bibles or castrating Christians, nor would I want them to, if only for the simple fact that if it can happen to one group of people it can happen to everybody. You're a disgusting scumbag and an ignorant ass to boot. Not surprising coming from your side of the political spectrum. Nothing compared to the ignorant BS that comes from your side of the political spectrum. Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: Ban my account ffs! on May 31, 2008, 01:24:17 PM The institution of marriage has been around a lot longer than the Bible. The only thing that has stopped gays from marrying has been being vast outnumbered by people that do not like them.
Nobody ever said the government should force Baptist churches into marrying gays... as a church, they have a constitutional right to deny marriage to anybody they wish. But on the other side, the government has no right to bar a church from marrying gays. As a church, they have a constitutional right to marry anybody they wish. The government can't discriminate in this way, especially not on "traditional religious" grounds. The government must recognize the marriage of two people, regardless of who they are. It has nothing to do with the Bible or the Koran or any other religious book. We are not a nation founded on the Bible. Many of our principles stem from Christianity because those are generally good principles that promote freedom. Banning of gay marriage or stoning adulterers is not one of those. We are a secular nation that must recognize the freedom of people to marry the person they love, regardless of sex. Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: JSojourner on May 31, 2008, 03:49:39 PM The institution of marriage has been around a lot longer than the Bible. The only thing that has stopped gays from marrying has been being vast outnumbered by people that do not like them. Nobody ever said the government should force Baptist churches into marrying gays... as a church, they have a constitutional right to deny marriage to anybody they wish. But on the other side, the government has no right to bar a church from marrying gays. As a church, they have a constitutional right to marry anybody they wish. The government can't discriminate in this way, especially not on "traditional religious" grounds. The government must recognize the marriage of two people, regardless of who they are. It has nothing to do with the Bible or the Koran or any other religious book. We are not a nation founded on the Bible. Many of our principles stem from Christianity because those are generally good principles that promote freedom. Banning of gay marriage or stoning adulterers is not one of those. We are a secular nation that must recognize the freedom of people to marry the person they love, regardless of sex. Great post, Snowguy. I couldn't agree more. And I find it preposterous to the point of laughability when I hear these clowns on Christian radio saying things like "the institution of marriage is under siege once again in New York" or "America's children are being recruited by radical homosexuals in supporting their lifestyle". I'm not sure if it's pathetically sad that so many sheep actually believe that crap. Or ridiculously funny that any thinking human being can be so stupid as to believe it. Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: Smash255 on May 31, 2008, 11:03:09 PM Same sex Marriage foes appear to have little options
Quote ALBANY - Opponents of same-sex marriage are weighing their legal and political options for responding to Gov. David A. Paterson's directive to state agencies to honor gay marriages recognized elsewhere. But for now those options seem limited. Senate Republicans say they may move out of committee their proposed law making same-sex marriage "absolutely void," while a spokesman for the leader of Assembly Republicans, James Tedisco of Schenectady, said Tedisco would conference on the subject with his party when they return to Albany on Monday. But aside from the fact that there is no legal mechanism to move a measure through the Assembly this late in the session, a gay-marriage ban stands no chance there, said Manhattan Democratic Assemb. Daniel O'Donnell, who last year sponsored and passed a bill to allow same-sex marriage. His bill is similarly stalled in the Senate. The Assembly is expected to take action next week on a bill, also pending in the Senate, that would prohibit discrimination based on gender identity or expression, and include protection for transgender people under the hate crimes statute. Though observers have compared the political heat from Paterson's directive to that generated by former Gov. Eliot Spitzer's move to issue driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, O'Donnell believes gay marriage won't do Republicans much good as a campaign theme either this year, in part because it enjoys increasing acceptance among younger voters. "If you look at polling data ... gay marriage is most popular on Long Island. Where do Republicans need to hold onto their majority? On Long Island," O'Donnell said. "So I don't think it's a winner." Sen. Craig Johnson (D-Port Washington), who co-sponsored the Senate version of O'Donnell's same-sex marriage bill, survived his stance despite a round of attack mail from his special-election opponent. In the courts, the Alliance Defense Fund, an Arizona-based advocacy group, is planning a court challenge against "the governor's authority to unilaterally impose same-sex marriage on every agency in our state," said Stephen Hayford, spokesman for the Coalition to Save Marriage in New York. Paterson's directive "just allows anyone who wants to just take a drive to Montreal or Niagara Falls, get a (marriage) license, maybe get a bite to eat, and come back, and now our state has to recognize it," Hayford said. "It is allowing foreign jurisdictions to export same-sex marriage into New York." But Paterson said this week he was merely heeding New York's constitutional obligation to honor valid contracts entered in other states. The directive was spurred by a February Appellate Division ruling in a Rochester case that foreign same-sex marriages are entitled to recognition in New York unless the state passes a law expressly forbidding it. http://www.newsday.com/news/local/state/ny-stgay315708509may31,0,7355017.story Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: Eraserhead on June 01, 2008, 01:59:04 AM Every day I get the feeling more and more that Patterson will not seek another term RUDY '10! Do you really want to give us such a gift? Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: DownWithTheLeft on June 01, 2008, 08:50:51 AM Every day I get the feeling more and more that Patterson will not seek another term RUDY '10! Do you really want to give us such a gift? Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on June 01, 2008, 10:48:18 AM I don't believe Okie is a bad person because of his beliefs, although the "I respect them as creations of the almighty" bothered me a bit. You should respect other because they're human beings like you. Why does that matter [qm]. So long as he respects them, I don't see a problem. He might get there a different way, but he still gets there. Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: Smash255 on June 01, 2008, 01:46:43 PM Every day I get the feeling more and more that Patterson will not seek another term RUDY '10! Do you really want to give us such a gift? The GOP really doesn't have a better option which shows how absolutely pathetic the NY GOP is. Anyway, how exactly does this make you think Paterson won't seek re-election?? Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: Bogart on June 01, 2008, 04:42:39 PM In another sickening move, Gov. David Paterson (D-NY) just announced within the last hour that the state of New York would now recognize gay marriages. I must say that I am VERY disappointed and deeply saddened by this. I support civil unions, but I do not and will never support or recognize a same-sex marriage. This makes 3 states I could never live in (Massachusetts, California, and now New York). What did same sex marriage ever do to you? But please...stay in Oklahoma...better for everyone. It just goes against everything I believe. Um... what is that last statement supposed to mean? It's okay. I think evangelical Christians are less human than the rest of us. They're just weakminded sheep looking for a shepherd. They just go against everything I believe. In fact, I think the government should discourage evangelical Christianity through passive discrimination... no Evangelicals in the military.. they might offend the other "normal" people and try to spread their undesirable religion.. and two Evangelical Christians should not be able to get married... it's just wrong. I mean, I have no good reason other than I just believe it is unnatural. Of course everything I just said is ludicrous... but I see it as no different than opposing gay marriage. Like Ellen said.. gay marriage is like womens' and civil rights. It's the same fight every time. And the conservatives opposed to gay marriage will say "it's not at all like civil rights or womens' rights"... just like the conservatives opposed to civil rights said "it's nothing like womens' rights"... and the process goes on and on and on. You know what goes against everything I believe in? Watching people suffer from the totally unnecessary hate rooted in the "beliefs" of people like you. I have never expressed "hatred" for gays and lesbians. I've got two friends who are gay. I just won't throw the Bible out the window and support gay marriage. I believe so strongly in the Bible that I cannot support gay marriage. Marriage is an institution designed by God for a man and a woman. I cannot in good conscience support a measure that goes against that. I totally understand there are people who don't believe in the Bible, or don't believe in that part of the Bible. That's fine. If my gay friends wanted to marry someone of their own gender, then I would walk to the civil union table with them, but I cannot and will not walk with them to the marriage ceremony. It doesn't mean I don't love them, I just love my God more. By the way, the remark about not being able to live in those three states was a sarcastic statement. I apologize for it being taken the wrong way. I'm sorry if you think all Southern Baptist Christians are "bigoted". To be honest, I'd rather be called a "bigot" then to be called a "Bible compromiser". Do you also condone selling daughters into slavery? The Bible says it's A-ok in Exodus 21:7. I'm sure some of you have seen this, but it's very funny and along the same lines. Dear Dr. Laura, Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them. a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them? b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense. d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians? e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself? f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here? h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die? i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves? j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14) I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging. Your devoted disciple and adoring fan. Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: Albus Dumbledore on June 01, 2008, 05:10:46 PM Every day I get the feeling more and more that Patterson will not seek another term RUDY '10! Do you really want to give us such a gift? The GOP really doesn't have a better option which shows how absolutely pathetic the NY GOP is. Anyway, how exactly does this make you think Paterson won't seek re-election?? Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: DownWithTheLeft on June 02, 2008, 07:35:04 PM Every day I get the feeling more and more that Patterson will not seek another term RUDY '10! Do you really want to give us such a gift? The GOP really doesn't have a better option which shows how absolutely pathetic the NY GOP is. Anyway, how exactly does this make you think Paterson won't seek re-election?? Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: Хahar 🤔 on June 02, 2008, 08:24:32 PM Every day I get the feeling more and more that Patterson will not seek another term RUDY '10! Do you really want to give us such a gift? The GOP really doesn't have a better option which shows how absolutely pathetic the NY GOP is. Anyway, how exactly does this make you think Paterson won't seek re-election?? Don't ever call San Francisco that again. Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: Joe Biden 2020 on June 02, 2008, 08:39:49 PM Every day I get the feeling more and more that Patterson will not seek another term RUDY '10! Do you really want to give us such a gift? The GOP really doesn't have a better option which shows how absolutely pathetic the NY GOP is. Anyway, how exactly does this make you think Paterson won't seek re-election?? Don't ever call San Francisco that again. Hey, if you call Oklahoma politics crazy (which they are), we have the right to call San Francisco politics weird (which they are). Turn about's fair play. Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: Хahar 🤔 on June 02, 2008, 09:02:48 PM Every day I get the feeling more and more that Patterson will not seek another term RUDY '10! Do you really want to give us such a gift? The GOP really doesn't have a better option which shows how absolutely pathetic the NY GOP is. Anyway, how exactly does this make you think Paterson won't seek re-election?? Don't ever call San Francisco that again. Hey, if you call Oklahoma politics crazy (which they are), we have the right to call San Francisco politics weird (which they are). Turn about's fair play. Don't care about what you label our politics. Just use the right name for the city. Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: Smash255 on June 02, 2008, 09:56:31 PM Every day I get the feeling more and more that Patterson will not seek another term RUDY '10! Do you really want to give us such a gift? The GOP really doesn't have a better option which shows how absolutely pathetic the NY GOP is. Anyway, how exactly does this make you think Paterson won't seek re-election?? Stunt? How so?? Generally that would refer to some wildly unpopular decision, and well this isn't an unpopular decision.... Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: Adam Griffin on June 03, 2008, 07:19:16 AM This thread's a hoot. Dodgy arguments *and* comically obvious hypocrisy! Anywho, the function of the government is to provide for the people, in an unbiased fashion. F**k religious morals, f**k the Bible, and most importantly f**k Christianity; Funny definition of "unbiased" there. But I'm not in the government, am I? Therefore I'll say how I feel, but I don't expect the government to start burning Bibles or castrating Christians, nor would I want them to, if only for the simple fact that if it can happen to one group of people it can happen to everybody. You're a disgusting scumbag and an ignorant ass to boot. Not surprising coming from your side of the political spectrum. :) Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: Bogart on June 03, 2008, 07:46:55 AM An obvious solution, as someone said, but no one commented on is to have the government recognize only civil union--regardless of sex--and leave marriage strictly to churches.
As for the rest, nothing in any holy book or cultural upbringing that validates the obvious inequality of the status quo. What's kinda funny to me is that you rarely find anyone who opposes allowing same-sex marriage deny that they're being discriminatory. With race, for example, you usually find people follow up whatever they've just said with, "not that I'm a racist..." Gays are one of the last groups that it's still OK to publicly discriminate against. Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: Alcon on June 03, 2008, 09:08:09 AM An obvious solution, as someone said, but no one commented on is to have the government recognize only civil union--regardless of sex--and leave marriage strictly to churches. For some reason, this will not be accepted at all, because this will really be seen as "destroying the institution of marriage." Which is retarded, really. Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on June 03, 2008, 12:33:14 PM It might be "obvious" but it's also stupid and ahistorical.
Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: Alcon on June 03, 2008, 12:51:54 PM It might be "obvious" but it's also stupid Why? and ahistorical. So? Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: Albus Dumbledore on June 03, 2008, 01:51:02 PM It might be "obvious" but it's also stupid and ahistorical. Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on June 03, 2008, 02:10:47 PM Should divorce be called "civil division"? Maybe father should be known now as "male child-rearer" and mother as "female child-rearer". Perhaps we ought to rename schools as "places-of-education-for-children". Maybe the word children needs to be changed as well; "small (non-adult) humans" or something like that. And so on and so forth. That's the first point. It's a petty one, but then just about every aspect of this issue is petty* I don't see what's wrong in raising it. The second point is probably more important, but whenever I've raised it in the past no one's taken any notice of it, so I won't say much. But basically the idea that marriage is or was ever largely a religious institution is absurd, ahistorical and rests on very silly, very inaccurate (and very American) assumptions about the historical role of churches in society and (especially!!!!!!) their relationship to the state. Quote So? See above. *things such as next-of-kin-status for homosexual couples certainly aren't petty, but the debate over this issue hardly ever looks at that side of things. Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: Alcon on June 03, 2008, 02:12:33 PM If the government recognizes "civil unions" and stays out of the marriage business, it's not going to cause people to stop having "marriages." That's ridiculous. And I don't feel that the issue is petty, I actually feel rather strongly about it, but you're entitled to your opinion.
Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on June 03, 2008, 07:14:07 PM If the government recognizes "civil unions" and stays out of the marriage business, it's not going to cause people to stop having "marriages." You miss my point. Quote And I don't feel that the issue is petty, I actually feel rather strongly about it, but you're entitled to your opinion. I didn't say that all aspects of the issue are petty and was actually quite clear about that. I'd be surprised if the symbolic elements to it were of great importance to you, but then no one is predictable beyond a certain point. Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: Bogart on June 04, 2008, 07:41:10 AM Should divorce be called "civil division"? Maybe father should be known now as "male child-rearer" and mother as "female child-rearer". Perhaps we ought to rename schools as "places-of-education-for-children". Maybe the word children needs to be changed as well; "small (non-adult) humans" or something like that. And so on and so forth. That's the first point. It's a petty one, but then just about every aspect of this issue is petty* I don't see what's wrong in raising it. The second point is probably more important, but whenever I've raised it in the past no one's taken any notice of it, so I won't say much. But basically the idea that marriage is or was ever largely a religious institution is absurd, ahistorical and rests on very silly, very inaccurate (and very American) assumptions about the historical role of churches in society and (especially!!!!!!) their relationship to the state. Quote So? See above. *things such as next-of-kin-status for homosexual couples certainly aren't petty, but the debate over this issue hardly ever looks at that side of things. Personally, I don't care what it's called, but that seems to be exactly the hangup for a lot of people. What I'm really talking about is having the government sanction the union, while leaving the churches to "bless" it if that's what people want. I could care less if the government calls is "marriage," "civil union," or anything else--so long as it's equal. Truthfully speaking, "marriage" makes the most sense from a historical sense. Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: Alcon on June 04, 2008, 03:26:56 PM You miss my point. Then you'll have to actually explain it, because apparently asking rhetorical questions didn't communicate your point well enough. I'm at a loss to think of anything else you would you have meant by that, and the "ahistorical" comment. I didn't say that all aspects of the issue are petty and was actually quite clear about that. I'd be surprised if the symbolic elements to it were of great importance to you, but then no one is predictable beyond a certain point. They might be of more importance - or at least more empathetic importance - if they were explained. Please do. Title: Re: New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on June 04, 2008, 08:00:56 PM Then you'll have to actually explain it, because apparently asking rhetorical questions didn't communicate your point well enough. I'm at a loss to think of anything else you would you have meant by that, and the "ahistorical" comment. I dislike the pointless wrecking of relatively minor elements of culture and general ruining of the language that has become so commonplace this past century. I especially don't like it when it's done out of ignorance (ie; this absurd idea that marriage is and was always a purely religious institution). Quote They might be of more importance - or at least more empathetic importance - if they were explained. Please do. What I wrote was this: *things such as next-of-kin-status for homosexual couples certainly aren't petty, but the debate over this issue hardly ever looks at that side of things. |