Gay Marriage Debate - New York, NY

Brian_G wrote:

History is on our side.

not for long, and ssm has been legalized in 7 states , do you call that history on your side? What a loser.

Brian_G wrote:

This Chick-fil-A economic extortion has given me a new reason to keep marriage male/female:

.

Too bad for opposers:

1: This poll is *INVALID*

2: SSM is already legal in New York.

3: Infringing the rights of a minority group is inconstitutional.

4: discrimination is Illegal in the U.S.A

5: tighten your seat belts the war on gay marriage has just started.

6: the supreme court in San Francisco found that is unconstitutional to prohibit ssm.

7: Expect to hear a lot on this issue after the elections.

8: if 7 states already legally recognize ssm, that means it should be legal nationwide and not put to vote, because is unconstitutional.

9: A new poll now shows that the majority of americans support ssm 51% support to 49% opposse.

10: History is getting on the side of *JUSTICE*.

While were on the subject, could we marry our 19 year old daughter. If she wants to stay with daddy, can't we be married too? What if she wants to be married also in a Church? Why is it so wrong for you to discriminate against us. Were both adults! And my two sons who is above legal age wish to marry. That should be addressed to when we make new laws. Only a bigot would disagree.

Goober wrote:

While were on the subject, could we marry our 19 year old daughter. If she wants to stay with daddy, can't we be married too? What if she wants to be married also in a Church? Why is it so wrong for you to discriminate against us. Were both adults! And my two sons who is above legal age wish to marry. That should be addressed to when we make new laws. Only a bigot would disagree.

disagreeing with incest is not being a bigot, however when you disagree with ssm, you violate the civil rights of people, some people hate the fact that gays can now legally marry in 7 states, that's bigotry.

Homosexuals can marry under the same laws as everyone else; they don't want 'equal rights', they aren't satisfied being treated like everyone else. Now, society is blind to sexual orientation, there's no law against same sex relationships.

They want to radically redefine marriage to make it unisex. They want the federal government to recognize a violation of the Defense of Marriage Act. Vice President voted to enact DOMA into law, when he was in the senate.

Obama/Biden; that's a mixed ticket.

Brian_G wrote:

This Chick-fil-A economic extortion has given me a new reason to keep marriage male/female:
17 Consequences, most same sex marriage supporters don't see the consequences of their actions harming every employee as much as it harms the owner.
18 Boycotts are economic extortion, not civil discourse.
19 Bullying isn't civil discourse, either.
Keep watching, there are more reasons for protecting marriage as time passes. History is on our side.

So, because a few a$$holes are protesting you are even MORE against gay rights?*slow clap* Look. I'm 100% against how people are handling the Chick-Fil-A thing. Just /don't go/ to the place! However, taking the rights of a group of people based on how they were born IS bullying, so congratulations on your LACK of civil discourse. I will always support gay rights because it's just the RIGHT thing to do. I don't know why these people care /now/ that the guy doesn't support gay marriage, when that was PERFECTLY clear before with his company sending money to hate groups, but whatever. I just don't go there. Then again, I don't go to /any/ fast food places, but Taco Bell because it's the only place I can get my favorite soda (Baja Blast Mountain Dew). I've been trying to send my own message that this whole thing is counter productive and I /have/ gotten people to stop, but now it sounds like it was /very/ productive, with the Supreme Court saying they're going to (maybe) hear us out...It's unnerving to me that the RIGHT side of this mess stooped to your level and bullied their way into being noticed, when that's /exactly/ what we've been fighting AGAINST this whole time...I really hope it doesn't screw us over...Especially in this crap economy. Not only should love be given the reign to marry, but it WOULD, as I proved before, help our economy IMMENSELY. Stop fighting to keep our funds in the crapper, and don't you DARE use these people as the example of gay rights supporters like everyone else. While I don't agree with their actions, I understand them. They're desperate for this discrimination to end. Anyone with a brain is. It's always going to be just /that/ simple.

Brian_G wrote:

Homosexuals can marry under the same laws as everyone else; they don't want 'equal rights', they aren't satisfied being treated like everyone else. Now, society is blind to sexual orientation, there's no law against same sex relationships.
They want to radically redefine marriage to make it unisex. They want the federal government to recognize a violation of the Defense of Marriage Act. Vice President voted to enact DOMA into law, when he was in the senate.
Obama/Biden; that's a mixed ticket.

That's an outright LIE. the LGBT community ONLY wants equal treatment! We DON'T have it! You have it in ALL 50 STATES! We have it in 7. HOW THE HELL is that "the same laws as everyone else"? Same sex relationships and same sex MARRIAGE are not the same. We don't get the same benefits, don't get to live as equals, and the laws on same sex marriage DISCRIMINATE against a minority! Guess what's illegal in the USA? Discrimination! It's not "radically" defining marriage ANY more so than it was when marriage was made to be interracial, or not some TRADE between fathers on their children. This is a completely POSITIVE change, "radical" or not. DOMA in and of itself is Unconstitutional and discriminatory and NOTHING more or less.

Quantum_Locked_Angel_Sami wrote:

<quoted text>
That's an outright LIE. the LGBT community ONLY wants equal treatment! We DON'T have it! You have it in ALL 50 STATES! We have it in 7. HOW THE HELL is that "the same laws as everyone else"? Same sex relationships and same sex MARRIAGE are not the same. We don't get the same benefits, don't get to live as equals, and the laws on same sex marriage DISCRIMINATE against a minority! Guess what's illegal in the USA? Discrimination! It's not "radically" defining marriage ANY more so than it was when marriage was made to be interracial, or not some TRADE between fathers on their children. This is a completely POSITIVE change, "radical" or not. DOMA in and of itself is Unconstitutional and discriminatory and NOTHING more or less.

Again you need to ask someone for a union! Marriage is ours under the Christian belief. 1980 Webster's New World Dictionary #1 the state of being married; relation between husband and wife; married life; wedlock; matrimony 2 the act of marrying; wedding 3. the rite or form used in marrying 4. any close or intimate union. 5. the king and Queen of a suit, as pinochle.
SYN.- marriages refers to the state of, or relation between a man and woman who have become husband and wife or to the ceremony marking this union... etc..

Your attempt to change words and try to make discrimination of set texts is invalid. You can not make a old word of English text into another. The first part of the meaning was, it was between a man and woman. You can create new words, but you cannot change history of words to apply to new meanings in the court of law!

Create a new word! Simple as that!

Matrimony and marriage mean man and woman. Gender diversity adds to the beauty of marriage. As beautiful as consent, gender affirmative action of male/female marriage is perfect like yin/yang.

Why mess with success? I'm a marriage moderate, I like marriage as is. Nobody wants to criminalize marriage but we criminalized bigamy to stop polygamy.

Think it over, quit when you're ahead.

I, for one, applaud the state of New York for their righteaous, ethical, moral and modern decision on gay marriage! 7 down, 43 to go! It will happen in this lifetime, I can feel it.

I will be giving a big happy HELLO to New York City for the first time this coming May when my fiance and I visit to become legally married! Thank you, New York, and God bless you!

RatherBeInMissouri wrote:

I, for one, applaud the state of New York for their righteaous, ethical, moral and modern decision on gay marriage! 7 down, 43 to go! It will happen in this lifetime, I can feel it.
I will be giving a big happy HELLO to New York City for the first time this coming May when my fiance and I visit to become legally married! Thank you, New York, and God bless you!

The term marriage will always be a eye sore to you. The term dose not, has not and never will be a term for you in a true born Christian. It will be the same as calling my hair a mane. A mane is, you know for something else. If your non-Christians New York congress wish to go against history of the meaning, then live with it and call your self a president while you are at it!

More than 30 States have defined marriage as one man and one woman by law. History, law and precedent are on our side.

Two Cents wrote:

<quoted text>
Again you need to ask someone for a union! Marriage is ours under the Christian belief. 1980 Webster's New World Dictionary #1 the state of being married; relation between husband and wife; married life; wedlock; matrimony 2 the act of marrying; wedding 3. the rite or form used in marrying 4. any close or intimate union. 5. the king and Queen of a suit, as pinochle.
SYN.- marriages refers to the state of, or relation between a man and woman who have become husband and wife or to the ceremony marking this union... etc..

No, marriage ceremonies have existed /throughout/ history in /every/ religion and lack thereof. The Greeks had it, the Native Americans had it, and so did Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc...It is not "yours" under ANY one belief system. The dictionary only defines that because that is how we're STUCK doing things...FOR NOW! This is /absolutely/ no different than the interracial marriage issues of the past. The only reason it is defined as it is NOW is because it isn't universally legal, despite being 100% universally morally RIGHT to do so. See, this is the problem with people like you. You think change /can't/ happen. It used to be the first definition under the word "gay" was happy. Now it's a person who is homosexual. It used to be that marriage was defined as between two /white/, opposite sex individuals./Now/ people are wising up. Atheism and intelligence are on the rise, and hate and ignorance are falling to the wayside. Religion /may/ be here forever, but even the religious are growing brains now. They know the law is /not/ to be based on religion, but on what is /right/ for society and the world. Guess what's right? Same sex marriage. It's is and always will be that simple.

Brian_G wrote:

More than 30 States have defined marriage as one man and one woman by law. History, law and precedent are on our side.

AGAIN, history is /not/ on your side. Just look at history and /think/ and you'll see that the future is looking /very/ good for same sex marriage. Law and precedent are changing for the better, slowly but surely, and you /will/ lose. We're not quitting while we're ahead because history is on /our/ side. Interracial marriage was the last hurdle. Now it's same-sex marriage. It shouldn't be labeled /any/ differently than any other marriage today. It is /just/ marriage. It is nothing more or less. It is equality, and it is what is /right/ both for morality and for the country if not the world.

Two Cents wrote:

<quoted text>
The term marriage will always be a eye sore to you. The term dose not, has not and never will be a term for you in a true born Christian. It will be the same as calling my hair a mane. A mane is, you know for something else. If your non-Christians New York congress wish to go against history of the meaning, then live with it and call your self a president while you are at it!

Eye sore??? Okay..

I don't care what your branch of Chritianity thinks of my marriage. I'm not looking to get married in your church, I already got married in mine. We just need the marriage license now.:)

Brian_G wrote:

More than 30 States have defined marriage as one man and one woman by law. History, law and precedent are on our side.

Laws change, my friend. Our constitution is forever fluid letting us apply it as the world and society change. It only takes one state to make a difference when civil rights are at risk. And then another state.. and another. Change has already begun.

Quantum_Locked_Angel_Sami wrote:

<quoted text>
AGAIN, history is /not/ on your side. Just look at history and /think/ and you'll see that the future is looking /very/ good for same sex marriage. Law and precedent are changing for the better, slowly but surely, and you /will/ lose. We're not quitting while we're ahead because history is on /our/ side. Interracial marriage was the last hurdle. Now it's same-sex marriage. It shouldn't be labeled /any/ differently than any other marriage today. It is /just/ marriage. It is nothing more or less. It is equality, and it is what is /right/ both for morality and for the country if not the world.

100% agreed. Great post! Not only do other religions and cultures use and celebrate marriage as you mentioned, but with this whole "marriage is for straight Christians" argument, we have to ask some questions. Like, if it is owned by Christianity, why can atheists get married too? Why did the US government steal marriage from the Christians and use it in a legal sense too? Not only that, but why do we PAY the county for a marriage license, like a tax if it is stricly Christian?

Answer: Because they are 2 separate things that use the same word. Religious marriage belongs to the religions that grant it. Legal marriage is a purchased piece of paper with a certain set of rights, responsibilities and penalties that go with it. Honestly people, that's all it is. And if a person wants to share those rights, responsibilities and penalties with someone of the same sex, it is absolutely absurd not to. It's text book discrimination.

The Equal Rights Amendment failed, states didn't ratify. There is no gender equality right in the Constitution.

Biden is running for Vice President. He voted to enact DOMA into law, when he was in the Senate. Romney has pledged to work for a Constitutionalism Amendment to define marriage as one man and one woman. President Obama's same sex marriage position is evolving.