Ciero your argument seems to be attacking marriage in general. As a married man I see some validity in your argument . Your example of polygamy is much better than your example of incest. Yet I don't see how it makes a case that we shouldn't allow gay people to have the same rights as straight people. I don't see how gay marriage is going to cause any harm to anyone, I don't think a bunch of guys are gonna divorce their wives and marry dudes.
It's passing right now, good to see that we can as a society grow and treat each other like family.
No Senders--doesn't mean they have their own set of rules. They want to be cunted EQUAL not less than you. For all the bitching that goes no this board about the right to life--why would you try to negate the rights of another human being? Senders--GET OFF THEIR BACK! YOU are treading on them.
I thought you were a devout catholic who follows the doctrine........no?
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
New York legalizes same-sex marriage as cheers ring out in city By BRENDAN SCOTT Post Correspondent Last Updated: 5:44 AM, June 25, 2011 Posted: 2:10 AM, June 25, 2011
ALBANY -- Senators said "I do" to gay marriage last night in a narrow 33-29 vote -- making New York the sixth and largest state to allow same-sex couples to wed.
The groundbreaking vote set off a roar of approval from supporters in the Senate gallery -- and a massive street party around the Stonewall Inn in Greenwich Village, the birthplace of the gay rights movement.
"I can't believe this is happening -- no words can say how I feel right now," said an elated Eugene Lovendusky, 26, a Queens teacher who joined nearly 600 champagne-swilling, rainbow flag-waving celebrants in the streets around the bar.
At least one man wore a wedding gown -- and more than few couples said they'd walk down the aisle as soon as possible.
"It's great to no longer feel like a second-class citizen," said an exuberant Tom Selty, 31, of Astoria, Queens,
At a party at the nearby Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Community Center, Martin Everall, 48, said the bill reflected that "We want what everyone else wants."....................>>>>...................>>>>..................Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/l.....e40pIO#ixzz1QI53GilG
Ciero your argument seems to be attacking marriage in general. As a married man I see some validity in your argument . Your example of polygamy is much better than your example of incest. Yet I don't see how it makes a case that we shouldn't allow gay people to have the same rights as straight people. I don't see how gay marriage is going to cause any harm to anyone, I don't think a bunch of guys are gonna divorce their wives and marry dudes.
It's passing right now, good to see that we can as a society grow and treat each other like family.
My argument isn't attacking marriage, it's ATTACKING GOVERNMENT LICENSING OF MARRIAGE. Our government has grown so large that we have taken what used to be a function of the church and now made it a function of the state. Not once did I say we shouldn't allow gay people to marry, I'm saying WE(THE GOVERNMENT) should have no say what two or more consenting people are allowed to have a ceremony and a legal binding contract in order to validate their relationship. Just like I don't care if 1 man wants to marry 5 women. Why would that be the governments concern? MONEY? CONTROL? DIVIDE?
I’m so proud! June 25, 2011 at 10:46 am by Sue Rock
Like I said, everyone should have pride – and now, we can.
Late Friday night, the New York State Senate passed the same-sex marriage bill 33-29, making New York the sixth (and largest) state to legally recognize same-sex marriages.
“Legally recognize” is important, because the last amendment to be attached to the bill – which really seemed to be the last sticking point – was a religious protection amendment. Basically, the amendment protects churches and religious organizations from being penalized if they choose not to recognize the marriages, perform ceremonies, rent facilities, etc.
I would never presume to speak for anyone who will be directly impacted by this bill – but that seems fair to me. It doesn’t seem all that much different from the Catholic church not recognizing marriages between men and women under certain circumstances. Personally, I wouldn’t affiliate myself with, or celebrate, a religion that looks down on anyone. I suspect anyone looking for the freedom to marry isn’t going to be too concerned that they can’t have their reception at a certain hall, since that’s not really what it’s about.
It’s really about civil rights. It’s about all people being treated equal. It’s about us treating each other with respect and dignity, and recognizing that no one person’s rights or beliefs are more important than anyone else’s.
Senator Mark Grisanti (R – Buffalo) was the 33rd vote. He’d previously been opposed to the bill; then he was undecided. When he explained his vote, he said that he could find “no legal reason to not support the bill.” So he changed his vote to yes – a vote which the Senate did not need, as only 32 votes were needed to make the bill a law.
“I apologize to those I offend,” said Grisanti, a Roman Catholic. “But I believe you can be wiser today than yesterday. I believe this state needs to provide equal rights and protections for all its residents,” he said.
Doing the right thing isn’t always easy. It’s also not easy to admit you might have been wrong; that you’ve learned, and in doing so, changed your mind. It’s especially not easy when it comes at a potentially high cost to you professionally as well as personally.
I’m proud of, and impressed by, the senators who stood up and did the right thing on Friday. I’m impressed by our Governor who introduced this bill, and worked with our legislature to make sure it happened.
I feel a little bit of pity (and frankly, anger) for the senators who didn’t. Especially my senator, Hugh Farley, who voted no – even after I, and I’m sure others, asked him to reconsider. I expect better from my representatives; after all, that’s why they are elected to make decisions on our behalf. I expect them to set aside their personal beliefs and preferences.
I expect them to do the right thing. Thank you to the 33 who did.
Our Next Marriage Equality Fight: Repealing DOMA Posted: 06/25/11 10:26 AM ET SEN. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND
What a historic day!
I couldn't be more thrilled that, thanks to extraordinary grassroots activism and the hard work of Governor Cuomo and so many committed organizations and elected officials, New York has once again led the way on equality.
Last night's vote for marriage equality in N.Y. was a true bipartisan effort, with Democratic and Republican state senators coming together to forge a pro-equality majority in support of the simple proposition that every New Yorker should be able to marry the person they love.
But our work is not done.
The fact is that once our LGBT friends and family are legally able to marry here in New York, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) will prohibit them from enjoying over 1,000 federal rights and privileges that are afforded straight married couples.
That's why earlier this year, I joined Senator Feinstein and several of my Senate colleagues to co-sponsor the Respect for Marriage Act, a bill that will repeal the regressive and discriminatory DOMA.
It's also why I've joined with Democracy For America (DFA) to launch a national online campaign to rally support for repeal. For only once every legally married couple in the United States is treated equally under federal law can we fulfill the true meaning of marriage equality.
I hope you'll join us.
The Defense of Marriage Act truly is damaging. Every day, thousands of legally married LGBT men and women around the country are unable to take advantage of rights and privileges -- from hospital visitation to inheritance rights to health benefits -- that straight married couples take for granted....................>>>>......................>>>>...............http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-kirsten-gillibrand/our-next-marriage-equalit_b_884491.html
Well they can't procreated on their own but they can still be fathers and mothers. Are the adopted children of a straight couple more valid than that of a gay couple? This law does not affect anyone but those who now have rights.
Re the AP June 25 article, “Legislature OKs gay marriage”: We are appalled that the state Legislature has passed gay marriage legislation. Marriage, very simply, should only be between a man and a woman, and this is not just an opinion. A traditional religious-based, man-woman union is the bedrock of our society. Regrettably this is another erosion of our values. Never again will we cast a vote for our state Sen. Roy McDonald or for Gov. [Andrew] Cuomo.
A recent Quinnipiac Poll showed that the majority of New Yorkers support gay marriage. The most telling number is in the 18 to 24 year old group, who supported the measure by a margin of 70% - 26%. For the next generation of New Yorkers, the issue of gay marriage is not a big deal.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
A recent Quinnipiac Poll showed that the majority of New Yorkers support gay marriage. The most telling number is in the 18 to 24 year old group, who supported the measure by a margin of 70% - 26%. For the next generation of New Yorkers, the issue of gay marriage is not a big deal.
Is that how you read that? That is like a polling question presented as "do you support feeding starving children?" And then when the numbers come back 70% to 30% you claim people must support government run social welfare. IT'S A LOADED QUESTION WITH ONLY A YES OR NO ANSWER. There is no room for another answer. It’s just another cleverly worded poll question to push and agenda. People like box and other sheeple like to feel they are with the "in crowd", so they cite these polls to make people feel they are in the minority, because as you know, there are only two positions – you are either Pro Gay or Anti Gay, nothing in between. Unfortunately it works.
Is that how you read that? That is like a polling question presented as "do you support feeding starving children?" And then when the numbers come back 70% to 30% you claim people must support government run social welfare. IT'S A LOADED QUESTION WITH ONLY A YES OR NO ANSWER. There is no room for another answer. It’s just another cleverly worded poll question to push and agenda. People like box and other sheeple like to feel they are with the "in crowd", so they cite these polls to make people feel they are in the minority, because as you know, there are only two positions – you are either Pro Gay or Anti Gay, nothing in between. Unfortunately it works.
Cicero certainly is prone to RANTS! It seems he is especially subject to a RantFest when confronted with FACTS! Poor guy
The question was: ~ "Would you support or oppose a law that would allow same-sex couples to get married?" ~ Just a SUPPORT or OPPOSE. Nothing about Pro gay or starving kids or... well you know... the rest of the Rant.
Really Cicero, if you have a problem with the way that the question was asked, you should contact Quinnipiac... after all... What would they know about asking questions!!!
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Hey, I looked at the poll, do you see that of the blacks polled, 42% support and 50% opposed a law ALLOWING gay marriage. Box, what do you read into that? Are a majority of blacks homophobes? Please show me your wisdom in reading polls.
The question is great, the state ALLOWING two consenting adults to marry. The question is presented in away that makes people believe you need the states permission to marry. How far have we fallen?
Polling Question:
Quoted Text
Would you support or oppose a law that would allow same-sex couples to get married?
I wonder how many people would support gay marriage without state licensing? That would be an interesting question
. Your example of polygamy is much better than your example of incest. Yet I don't see how it makes a case that we shouldn't allow gay people to have the same rights as straight people. I don't see how gay marriage is going to cause any harm to anyone, I don't think a bunch of guys are gonna divorce their wives and marry dudes. 
Logged
