New York state approves gay marriage

[Gerald]

Supporters of same-sex marriages in New York celebrated after the vote!

New York has become the sixth and most populous US state to allow same-sex marriage.

The Republican-controlled state senate voted 33-29 for a bill that had earlier been approved by the lower house, which has a Democratic majority.

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo quickly signed the bill into law. Gay weddings are expected to start within 30 days.

It has become a contentious social issue ahead of next year's presidential and congressional elections.

"New York has finally torn down the barrier that prevented same-sex couples from exercising the freedom to marry and from receiving the fundamental protections that so many couples and families take for granted," Mr Cuomo said in a statement.

He kept his promise to sign the bill as soon as he received it after the Senate vote - rather than wait the usual 10 days.

Gay rights activists said the approval of the bill was a key victory for them, in what is seen as the birthplace of the US gay rights movement.

"It's about time. I want to get married. I want the same rights as anyone else," 36-year-old student Caroline Jaeger told Reuters news agency.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13914013


Note: 25 June 2011 Last updated at 06:20 GMT

[Snestorm]

It's a sick world we live in, and it's getting sicker.

[Morts]

whats so wrong with gay marriage snestorm ? afraid they're gonna "infect" you ?

[Snestorm]

Marriage is between a man and a woman.

[Tribesman]

It's a sick world we live in, and it's getting sicker.
That is true, after the horrors of the 30s and 40s you would have thought no one could be sick enough to still be a nazi.
White power for the master race:rock:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yu2NqfISm9k&feature=related
isn't it amazing that the nazi party had such gay uniforms, perhaps Snestorms objections are just stifling his screams from the closet:rotfl2:


whats so wrong with gay marriage snestorm ? afraid they're gonna "infect" you ?

No thats the people with too much pigmentation, gays are just an abomination.

[Betonov]

...36-year-old student...

I thought I was slow at graduating :o


Good luck to the New Yorkers, marriage can be grueling :DL Perhaps alowing the gays to marry is a punishment to them.

Marriage is between a man and a woman.

Where does it says that. The bible, the quran... pack of BS printed on toilet paper. The ancient greek were a hell lot more relaxed when it came to gays. Right, marriage then was only between a man and a woman because marriage was a baby producing procces, not a ceremony to show love and devotion between two people. After the marriage guys had it on with guys. The church would say they were sick. Now lets see, the Greek civilization and their cultural and scientific progress we admire today, or the hate filled, witch burning, disease ridden medieval times when the church rulled Europe. Now that was sick.
And let them have children. The social engineering and the child pyschologists would ******* them up so there would be no difference from the children of straight people.

My advice, meet some gays. Women are drawn to gays like moths to a light. All you need to do is scoop them up. And finaly get laid and stop thinking about how the world is sick because it's diverse with people that love different things than the average population.

[The Enigma]

I thought I was slow at graduating :o


Good luck to the New Yorkers, marriage can be grueling :DL Perhaps alowing the gays to marry is a punishment to them.



Where does it says that. The bible, the quran... pack of BS printed on toilet paper. The ancient greek were a hell lot more relaxed when it came to gays. Right, marriage then was only between a man and a woman because marriage was a baby producing procces, not a ceremony to show love and devotion between two people. After the marriage guys had it on with guys. The church would say they were sick. Now lets see, the Greek civilization and their cultural and scientific progress we admire today, or the hate filled, witch burning, disease ridden medieval times when the church rulled Europe. Now that was sick.
And let them have children. The social engineering and the child pyschologists would ******* them up so there would be no difference from the children of straight people.

My advice, meet some gays. Women are drawn to gays like moths to a light. All you need to do is scoop them up. And finaly get laid and stop thinking about how the world is sick because it's diverse with people that love different things than the average population.

:up:

[BossMark]

Well it is kind of sick two blokes\girls marrying each just aint right, but as long as they dont bother me then let them get on with it.

[Tribesman]

Well it is kind of sick two blokes\girls marrying each just aint right
What exactly is sick about it?
Why is it just not right?

[BossMark]

What exactly is sick about it?
Why is it just not right?
1.Its not natural or doesnt seem natural
2.If they ADOPT a kid how does the poor sod decide which is mummy and is which daddy Jesus the poor kid
3.I have nothing against gays but letting them wed yes, marriage should be between man and woman not man and man or women and women.

[Tribesman]

So Bossmark it is just your own hangups and you cannot come up with real reasons.

[Betonov]

A penis is a natural thing (if you have a wooden one, then you're an exeption, sorry) and a vagina is a natural thing. Sooooooo how does combining two of the same of this natural things make it not natural. Sex is not a rafiniration process where you throw in two natural things and out comes a piece of plastic

[Blood_splat]

They'll fight and get divorced just like any other marriage.:arrgh!:

[Tribesman]

They'll fight and get divorced just like any other marriage.
One key word there gives all the justification needed for allowing these legal contracts known as marriage to take place.

[Morts]

1.Its not natural or doesnt seem natural
2.If they ADOPT a kid how does the poor sod decide which mummy and which daddy Jesus the poor kid
3.I have nothing against gays but letting them wed yes, marriage should be between man and woman not man and man or women and women.

Actually, homosexuality is very common in nature, so nothing unnatural about it.

[Sailor Steve]

Yes, it seems unnatural to me as well, but I learned long ago that I'm only myself and can't speak for anyone else. If they aren't hurting anyone else, then anyone else's opinion doesn't count, and preventing (or trying to prevent) someone from doing what they want is sicker than the assumed 'sickness'. Just because you think it's wrong doesn't mean it actually is.

[mookiemookie]

The inexorable march of civil rights continues. Congratulations, New York.

[razark]

Actually, homosexuality is very common in nature, so nothing unnatural about it.
And marriage (even heterosexual marriage) does not occur in nature.

[Krauter]

I think along the same lines as Sailor Steve I think...

As long as a gay couple aren't mooching each other in front of me.. or hitting on me. Then I don't really care.

Also, remember seeing this standup performance from Ron White a while back.. it's a little lewd but I still find it funny and appropriate for this situation... Whenever I think of homophobes it reminds me of this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mY711HJK7pg

[Gerald]

A completely natural way of thinking, a man and a woman, :yep:

[Sailor Steve]

And marriage (even heterosexual marriage) does not occur in nature.
A point I had not considered. Animals do make bonds, but only humans make contracts.

[Penguin]

And marriage (even heterosexual marriage) does not occur in nature.

I think ducks have a civil union. :DL

[razark]

A point I had not considered. Animals do make bonds, but only humans make contracts.
Don't remember where I read this study, but there is a correlation between testicle size related to body size of primates and level of monogamous relationships. The higher the propensity for monogamous relationships, the smaller the testicles. If I am recalling correctly, gorillas were on the small end, and chimpanzees were on the large end of the scale. Humans fell a lot closer to the chimp end, showing that monogamous relationships are basically an artificial construct for the species.

Edit:
Found a reference to that study here:
http://scienceblogs.com/primatediaries/2009/08/those_cheating_testicles_or_who.php

[BossMark]

So Bossmark it is just your own hangups and you cannot come up with real reasons.
Just dont agree with them getting married, I once went to a gay wedding a young lass from work got married and she was the groom and the other was of course the bride and as I have said it didn't seem natural, and I have witnessed it with my own eyes

[Sailor Steve]

I think ducks have a civil union. :DL
Where do they hide the papers?

While we're on the subject of birds, do Penguins...? Oh, never mind.
:rotfl2:

...monogamous relationships are basically an artificial construct for the species.
I've long been of the opinion that marriage came about as a means to tie a couple together to guarantee the presence of the father so the children would be safe. That would imply that I believe that only a man and a woman should marry, but it would also imply that I believed that divorce should be illegal, at least where underage children are involved. But as I've said, what I believe shouldn't govern what other people do, especially where their beliefs are the only ones that count.

Just dont agree with them getting married, I once went to a gay wedding a young lass from work got married and she was the groom and the other was of course the bride and as I have said it didn't seem natural, and I have witnessed it with my own eyes.
That's a perfectly valid opinion, and one I feel the same about. However, as I've said, just because you or I don't like it doesn't mean it should be illegal. A lot of people don't like rock and roll, but I'd very much hate to see it outlawed.

[Penguin]

Don't remember where I read this study, but there is a correlation between testicle size related to body size of primates and level of monogamous relationships. The higher the propensity for monogamous relationships, the smaller the testicles. If I am recalling correctly, gorillas were on the small end, and chimpanzees were on the large end of the scale. Humans fell a lot closer to the chimp end, showing that monogamous relationships are basically an artificial construct for the species.

:hmmm: interesting study. However us humans still have this inner voice called emotion. I guess that's what ties most of us to a single partner, I woud not exclude that people are able to love more than one person, but love is also an egoistic feeling. I am not talking about possession, but about a feeling of "I don't want to share my partner with others (as I am better than them :O:)"

[razark]

I've long been of the opinion that marriage came about as a means to tie a couple together to guarantee the presence of the father so the children would be safe. That would imply that I believe that only a man and a woman should marry, but it would also imply that I believed that divorce should be illegal, at least where underage children are involved.
That line of reasoning would also create a problem for couples that are unable or unwilling to have children. Would that mean my parents are no longer married, as all their children have left home and they aren't having any more?

I believe that raising children had a lot to do with the origin of marriage. It also makes inheritance a lot easier to deal with when you can point and say "he's the father of this child".

[MH]

Wow looks like gays are lot of fun.

Let then get married they will realise that its mistake very soon.
That it unless dude to dude thing works better-they might have beer evening while playing sub sims and having manly conversations....:haha:
No matter what the pros and cons are they should have the right.
Adopting children and effect on them remains to be seen yet.

[Penguin]

Where do they hide the papers?

While we're on the subject of birds, do Penguins...? Oh, never mind.
:rotfl2:

:haha: *nerd attack*
from the PenguinFAQ @ http://www.gdargaud.net/Antarctica/PenguinFAQ.html:

Adelie penguins usually keep the same mate all their life, unless the mate dies. Emperor penguins are monogamous... for a year, meaning they usually change mate every year.
:know: doesn't also sound to bad, a new partner every mating season... -though I am an Adelie penguin since 11 years ;)


That's a perfectly valid opinion, and one I feel the same about. However, as I've said, just because you or I don't like it doesn't mean it should be illegal.

I agree. I prefer an honest opinion over some fake pseudo-tolerance out of peer pressure. I have a friend who is homophobic - he just doesn't like the sight/imagination. When we make a party at our home, he knows that guests are kings in our house and anybody there should be treated with respect. So when he is there, and two gals/girls are kissing he just looks the other way and refrains from pointless comments. This way everybody's happy - and as we are no teenagers anymore, most couples don't have to stick their tongue into each other's mouth all the time anyway ;)


A lot of people don't like rock and roll, but I'd very much hate to see it outlawed.


"Of course, it would be wrong to suggest this sort of mayhem began with rock-and-roll. After all, there were riots at the premiere of Mozart's "The Magic Flute." So, what's the answer? Ban all music? In this reporter's opinion, the answer, sadly, is 'yes'."
(Kent Brockman in the Simpsons) :D

[Lord_magerius]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_4qQMdaBD3VE/SSYKKxLnTeI/AAAAAAAAABc/JKnQH3_rVkk/s400/gay+marriage+graph.bmp

[Gerald]

Communist red....

[Armistead]

The one man one woman marriage has a religious base, not a constitutional one. The bigger issue is marriage was made a religious/government mix containing laws and themes from both institutions that often are in conflict. This same thinking resulted in slavery and women having no rights until secular courts took the religion out of a persons free right to happiness causing no harm to others.

It's not for me, the thought of two men getting it on makes me sick, but at the same time two women could turn me on, so it's really perspective, not that I ever watch that kind of stuff....much anymore.

Course these are limited state rights, so until it's a federal law nationwide, still not equal rights.
People act like we're gonna see a big difference. I have a gay couple in my hood that have lived here for 20 years, if they got married I would see no difference and would never know unless told.

What concerns me is the gay agenda, often pushing their themes into areas such as schools, etc. I understand the reasoning, the more that agree, the more that vote...Give them all their rights as you and I have and we should see the gay agenda die out as they will have no need for one.

Polygamy will soon be the next battle.

[mookiemookie]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_4qQMdaBD3VE/SSYKKxLnTeI/AAAAAAAAABc/JKnQH3_rVkk/s400/gay+marriage+graph.bmp

:rotfl2: Good one

[Betonov]

But the gay marrying should be pink, ice caps melting should be blue and russia invades should be red

[yubba]

Yes the people have cried out and the government answered, to get a new voter base, next the insurance companies won't want to cover these same sex couples, like they do for mixed couples and their children, and again the people will cry out.

[Betonov]

One more statement.
While I support them having the same rights as us, when they'll start demanding priviliges I'll stick those priviliges in their asses in a way they won't enjoy them

[Krauter]

A little lewd....:nope:

[Buddahaid]

One more statement.
While I support them having the same rights as us, when they'll start demanding priviliges I'll stick those priviliges in their asses in a way they won't enjoy them

Now who is the sicko?:shucks:

[Tribesman]

Just dont agree with them getting married, I once went to a gay wedding a young lass from work got married and she was the groom and the other was of course the bride and as I have said it didn't seem natural, and I have witnessed it with my own eyes
So Bossmark your justification over how sick it is and how just ain't right it is amounts to no reason you can express.
Its just your own little feelings that you cannot seem to explain rationaly.
It doesn't make a great case for you does it?

The one man one woman marriage has a religious base, not a constitutional one.
Yet the same religious base has plenty that shoots that one man one woman base to pieces, when explored further the "religious" base concerns issues mainly about rights property inheritence and general business practices.
At the end of the day marriage is in effect just a business contract between individuals.

[Krauter]

So Bossmark your justification over how sick it is and how just ain't right it is amounts to no reason you can express.
Its just your own little feelings that you cannot seem to explain rationaly.
It doesn't make a great case for you does it?


Yet the same religious base has plenty that shoots that one man one woman base to pieces, when explored further the "religious" base concerns issues mainly about rights property inheritence and general business practices.
At the end of the day marriage is in effect just a business contract between individuals.

Everyone is allowed to express how they feel... as long as they don't try to force that opinion on other, as some are doing here, then it's not against the law... It's a double edged sword gentlemen.

[BossMark]

So Bossmark your justification over how sick it is and how just ain't right it is amounts to no reason you can express.
Its just your own little feelings that you cannot seem to explain rationaly.
It doesn't make a great case for you does it?

Never said it was sick and I have nothing against them getting married all I am saying is that that doest seem right that's all.
Oh BTW your not one of them are you?:shucks:

[Sailor Steve]

Oh BTW your not one of them are you?:shucks:
And if he was? The first time we had this discussion I had someone say to me "You must be gay yourself!" I'm not, and that kind of challenge is the cheap way of trying to justify yourself by demeaning the other guy. It's neither necessary or useful in any kind of debate.

[Betonov]

Now who is the sicko?:shucks:

That is still debatable.
The gays though are not sicko's. Normal and natural, made tabu by the ''holly'' men. Shouting god loves all and then denying an entire group their rights everyone else has.... that's sick.
But if you start giving them priviliges, your denying rights to everyone else. And they havent earned their priviliges (as a group), cause they're ordinary people.
So take that crown of your head, you proved nothing :|\\

[Krauter]

No one ever said they were asking for privileges... Ever heard that old saying when you assume things you make something of you and me?

Right now they're fighting for their rights. That's awesome and I wish all Gay, Lesbian and anything else in between good luck in getting what's rightfully theirs.

We'll cross the "privilege" bridge when we get there... Because to be honest, when you start accusing a group of people for fighting for privileges you're opening a whole new can of worms that encompasses more then just that group.

[Betonov]

No one ever said they were asking for privileges... Ever heard that old saying when you assume things you make something of you and me?

Right now they're fighting for their rights. That's awesome and I wish all Gay, Lesbian and anything else in between good luck in getting what's rightfully theirs.

We'll cross the "privilege" bridge when we get there... Because to be honest, when you start accusing a group of people for fighting for privileges you're opening a whole new can of worms that encompasses more then just that group.

Totally agree here.

Right now they aren't. But every group has a fringe element. And once they'll achieve their goals of being equall they'll go for the priviliges. Most of them wont, that I am sure, but the loudest will. And the liberals will cry ''let's give them, they deserved it after two millenia of persecution'' and the conservatives will yell ''we should never have given them their basic rights, the end is near'' and those of us that will say ''enough, just shut up already'' will be branded as hippies, gays and faschists by all sides

[Krauter]

:haha: So basically what happened to every group that achieved their rights in the first place? It's a sick world we live in as has been pointed out in this thread. But I don't think it's because a man can sleep with another man or a woman with another woman.

It's sick because there are people willing to twist an honest and righteous fight for equality to suit their own gains.

It happened when Blacks gained their rights, it happened when women gained their rights and hell it's going to happen when gays get their rights too.

[Betonov]

Sadly yes. But it's the fringe elements of every group that will always want even more.

I agree with you, I support them in their rights. But only their rights.

[Krauter]

As I agree with you :)

It is the same in all groups. As an example, are all Muslims bad? Some would argue yes, I think it's the fringe and extremist elements. Much the same as there are extremist Christians, Jews, women's rights activists, gay pride activists, and a host of other groups I can't think of at the moment.

[Penguin]

That is still debatable.
The gays though are not sicko's. Normal and natural, made tabu by the ''holly'' men. Shouting god loves all and then denying an entire group their rights everyone else has.... that's sick.
But if you start giving them priviliges, your denying rights to everyone else. And they havent earned their priviliges (as a group), cause they're ordinary people.
So take that crown of your head, you proved nothing :|\\

I think Buddhahead referred to sticking privileges into arses - guess this can be called sick if there is no consent...;)

[Platapus]

36-year-old student

I thought I was slow at graduating :o




Hey! I am a 50 year old student. :stare:

:D

[Penguin]

Hey! I am a 50 year old student. :stare:

:D

38 year oldtimer here, but I am only doing distance learning
As I have a full-time job I call it working-class advanced education :O:

@Platapus: Aren't you aleady working on your thesis?

[Gerald]

Hey! I am a 50 year old student. :stare:

:D Yes,yes....a "young" 50y old student, :DL

[Betonov]

I think Buddhahead referred to sticking privileges into arses - guess this can be called sick if there is no consent...;)

You got to get rough with the fringe element, to get the point across

[Gerald]

38 year oldtimer here, but I am only doing distance learning
As I have a full-time job I call it working-class advanced education :O:

@Platapus: Aren't you aleady working on your thesis? "working-class advanced education" it may involve some :DL

[Platapus]

Oh BTW your not one of them are you?:shucks:


We all might want to tone down the rhetoric for the sake of our gay members. Believe it or not, but "them gays" do have feelings too. :yep:

[Platapus]

38 year oldtimer here, but I am only doing distance learning
As I have a full-time job I call it working-class advanced education :O:

@Platapus: Aren't you aleady working on your thesis?

Still plugging away on my dissertation. I am, as they say, ABD.

So close, but then so far away. :D

[Stealhead]

It is my personal opinion that you are more or less born to have what ever sexual preference that you have.I mean what person ever sat down say on the day that they hit puberty and decided what they where going to be attracted to for the rest of their lives? No one did. What person would choose willingly to go with the "preference" that is not accepted and has much stigma about it(mostly not true) and insures alienation from some friends and family?No one would.This applies to me and other people that have discussed this topic with me some of them heterosexual others homosexual.

We are the way we are because things in our brain made us that way from birth that is why it seems so natural it is because it is so deeply ingrained in your inner psyche that you can not change it.

Personally I dont really care who gets married oh raises kids as long as they do it well I dont see any reason why both parents being men or women makes any difference.My younger brother is gay and if something happened to myself and my wife I have no concern about my daughter living with my brother and his partner.I say this because I know that most stereotypes about gays are not true they are not trying to "spread" gayness which seems to be what many anti gays seem to fear.

[sidslotm]

there's nothing humans love more than deferring their responsibility to reason. From the moment we are born the fight is on, alcoholism, drugs, smoking, stealing, murder, lying and cheating. Homosexuality is just one of the things we have to fight off, why it attracts so much attention speaks for itself.

The conscious and itelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Edward Bernayes.

this statement explains much, Bernayes was able to weald influence at presidential level.

[Platapus]

Fight off homosexuality? :hmmm:

[mookiemookie]

Reminds me of that year I spent in prison. :rotfl2:

[antikristuseke]

From what i hear you only put up a fight for show...:hmmm:

[razark]

Fight off homosexuality? :hmmm:
Haven't you seen the news? Ever since gay marriage was legalized, the brave people of New York have been besieged in their homes. The homosexuals have taken over everything. Whole towns and villages have fallen to the rampaging hordes. Central Park is being dug up into a giant barbecue pit. Entire forests are being stripped of trees so the savage bands of gays can start cooking and eating babies. Once they're done with them, they'll move on to older children. No one is safe. Civilization has completely fallen, and all the real people are fleeing for their lives.


Or not. That might have been a zombie story I read.

[Krauter]

Or not. That might have been a zombie story I read.

Thread Win right here :haha:

[Gerald]

http://www.canada.com/life/York+state+senate+approves+marriage/5003725/story.html

Note: Update Record,June 27, 2011

[Armistead]

For most straight men against homosexuality, I debate that, because most have no problem getting turned on watching two women go at it or even men and women...It's really perspective. I admit two men would sicken me, but two women wouldn't, so the issue isn't homosexuality, it's what I prefer.

[Gerald]

Two girls ... may be right to see :D but I prefer one...

[Gerald]

The successful battle for gay marriage legislation in New York State involved the debut of an intriguing new way to apply social media to social change: Friendfactor. While the precise role it played in the law’s passage is unclear, Friendfactor offered a new model for online organizing that could become very useful in similar rights campaigns.

Although Friendfactor depends on social media to contact people, the strategy it used to support gay rights differed in important ways from the supposed Twitter and Facebook “revolutions” we have read so much about: it capitalizes on the strong bonds of real friendship — the old-fashioned sort that exists offline — to move people to action.

As a revolutionary tool, digital media has many obvious advantages, but two major flaws. First, revolutions do not take place online. They take place in the street. Let’s say you have 70,000 people on Facebook. You still have to do something with them. What? In revolutions that succeed, like the one in Cairo’s Tahrir Square, organizers have a carefully-planned answer to that question. The second problem is that online connections alone, like “friends” on Facebook, are not strong enough to motivate people in tough or dangerous situations. As Macolm Gladwell noted last year in a piece in The New Yorker, high-risk activism is a “strong-ties” phenomenon. The people who stayed with the American civil rights movement, he explained, were not more committed than those who dropped out, but they had more personal connections to others in the movement. The Egyptians in Tahrir Square were motivated by their connections to others in the group around them. They wanted to go out in the street and be daring and take risks with their friends. Real friends can flip a switch that turns ordinary people into heroes. Online “friends” cannot.

What emerged in the gay marriage campaign in New York is that Friendfactor found a way to combine the agility of online communication with the strong ties of real-life friendship.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/07/on-gay-rights-moving-real-life-friends-to-action/

Note: Update Record,July 7, 2011, 7:43 pm