New York State to Recognize Gay Marriages

[DownWithTheLeft]

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?

Do you really think there is a better GOP option?  Who would they go with?  Peter King, Vito Fosella?

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?? 

Stunts like this are usually pulled by politicians who do not care about being re-elected, or VT/San Fran politicians

[Хahar 🤔]

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?

Do you really think there is a better GOP option?  Who would they go with?  Peter King, Vito Fosella?

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?? 

Stunts like this are usually pulled by politicians who do not care about being re-elected, or VT/San Fran politicians

Don't ever call San Francisco that again.

[Joe Biden 2020]

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?

Do you really think there is a better GOP option?  Who would they go with?  Peter King, Vito Fosella?

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?? 

Stunts like this are usually pulled by politicians who do not care about being re-elected, or VT/San Fran politicians

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.

[Хahar 🤔]

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?

Do you really think there is a better GOP option?  Who would they go with?  Peter King, Vito Fosella?

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?? 

Stunts like this are usually pulled by politicians who do not care about being re-elected, or VT/San Fran politicians

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.

[Smash255]

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?

Do you really think there is a better GOP option?  Who would they go with?  Peter King, Vito Fosella?

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?? 

Stunts like this are usually pulled by politicians who do not care about being re-elected, or VT/San Fran politicians

Stunt?  How so??  Generally that would refer to some wildly unpopular decision, and well this isn't an unpopular decision....

[Adam Griffin]

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.

[Bogart]

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.

[Alcon]

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.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It might be "obvious" but it's also stupid and ahistorical.

[Alcon]

It might be "obvious" but it's also stupid

Why?

and ahistorical.

So?

[Albus Dumbledore]

It might be "obvious" but it's also stupid and ahistorical.

The industrial revolution is ahistorical, full gender equality is ahistorical, the internet is ahistorial. Your point is?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Why?

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[Alcon]

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.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[Bogart]

Why?

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[Alcon]

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.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.