New York State rejects Gay marriage

[5.56'aholic]

while i understand some of those who are arguing that the government should not be involved in family life regardless of what type of structure the family is, I do not feel that this makes any conservative pro big government for wanting a ruling against same sex marriage.
One must remember it is the opposing view point, ie. gay marriage supporters, that brought this into the government's view to begin with, as a way to legitimize their "unions" under the claim of equality. Those standing against that view point are strictly doing so out of the pot stirring done by the radical left. Don't believe me? Then why have the laws defining marriage only started being put in the books now? Many states had no such definition until the gay marriage debate started. If you ask me, the movement only hurt itself when its supporters turned to the public.

 

[Eddie]

Here goes

I think that in general, the less the government can tell me or anyone else how to live their lives the better. I'm not condoning or opposing what anyone else wants to do. We should each be able to live our lives how we want without needing the government's permission to get married. My wife and I got married in our church and we had to follow our church's rules when we got married. That's enough for me. If some other church wants to make different rules about who can get married that is their business because I won't be going to that church. That is all the rules I think we need.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

while i understand some of those who are arguing that the government should not be involved in family life regardless of what type of structure the family is, I do not feel that this makes any conservative pro big government for wanting a ruling against same sex marriage.
One must remember it is the opposing view point, ie. gay marriage supporters, that brought this into the government's view to begin with, as a way to legitimize their "unions" under the claim of equality. Those standing against that view point are strictly doing so out of the pot stirring done by the radical left. Don't believe me? Then why have the laws defining marriage only started being put in the books now? Many states had no such definition until the gay marriage debate started. If you ask me, the movement only hurt itself when its supporters turned to the public.

So, are you against equality? We give special tax, medical, inheritance, & child-custody benefits to married heterosexuals. Those benefits shouldn't exist. If they didn't exist, then there wouldn't be a legitimate reason for state-sponsored marriage. If state-sponsored marriage didn't exist, then this entire debate would exist in our places of worship & in our homes, instead of in our state-houses.

Those of us with the viewpoint of abolishing state-sponsored marriage & the special treatment of such essentially disagree with 'both sides' of the issue. Gay marriage shouldn't be legal or illegal. It, like heterosexual marriage & polygamy, shouldn't be a legal matter at all. What consenting adults decide to do with each other is none of our business.

My wife & I were married in a church & our marriage is based upon our faith. Ten years ago, long before I even knew what liberty meant, I simply followed the crowd in obtaining a marriage license, so our marriage is state-sponsored. I now know that the only part of our marriage that mattered was the faith part.

Not that this matters in our discussion about illegality of consensual contracts, but I do not agree that homosexuality is always genetic nor physically natural for a person. I also do not agree that it's always a choice. If someone can be a physical hermaphrodite, then a basic understanding of human physiology insists that others can be chemical hermaphrodites while showing no obvious outward signs.

 

[melensdad]

Traditional in a religious sense. . .

Did I ever mention religion? Nope.

How about traditional is the biological sense? You know, the sense that actually works to create families?

 

[nawainwright]

Thank goodness someone did their research on Wiki's. Lets avoid any kind of REAL investigation. As Michael Scott says, "Wikipedia is the best thing ever. Anyone in the world can write anything they want about any subject. So you know you are getting the best possible information."

and I especially love this little number:

I cited my source and never once claimed it to be absolute truth.

Then why quote it? If its not true, it certainly doesn't help your argument.

Hey, the homeless man I drove by today told me the economy is getting better. HALLELUJAH!! He must know what he's talking about....right?

 

[jdhaines]

I agree with those who think the government should stay out of it. Any couple should get the "Married" benefits. Two old man widowers could use the benefits. Why not let them. It shouldn't require a sexual relationship or anything else. If Joe Christian or Sam Catholic don't agree with a union between two men...Fine. Don't. It's not up to me to condone a marriage between two men. They can do what they do and I'll stay out of it. If someone's religion doesn't agree...fine then they can't get married at your church. Why does anything about this whole topic need to be in a law book somewhere.

Some sort of union should exist or not exist through law for any benefits gleaned by two people taking on the economy together. A marriage should be between the people involved and their religion (if that matters to them) or purely for ceremonial and family's sake.

This is supposed to be the land of the free which means if two people want to be joined by some personal ceremony they shouldn't require Roger Religious' approval.

 

[langb29]

Thank goodness someone did their research on Wiki's. Lets avoid any kind of REAL investigation. As Michael Scott says, "Wikipedia is the best thing ever. Anyone in the world can write anything they want about any subject. So you know you are getting the best possible information."

and I especially love this little number:


Then why quote it? If its not true, it certainly doesn't help your argument.

Hey, the homeless man I drove by today told me the economy is getting better. HALLELUJAH!! He must know what he's talking about....right?

Wow, the wiki quote really got some people going, but as groove already mentioned, that's really not the point. The question remains, if you believe the government should decide which "couples" have certain union rights and which don't, then how can you claim to be against big government? I don't think you can.

And why are people arguing that pro gay marriage people are pro government? Umm, yeah, no surprise there from the liberals. I do, however, agree with the statement that they probably hurt themselves by making it a public issue.

I'm a catholic, and if my church doesn't recognize same-sex marriage, that's my choice for being a member, it's a private organization, but the government should either grant the legal benefits to all unions, or stay out of it. The whole issue is a waste of time to politicians, when so many other issues are needing attention.

 

[hornadylnl]

So, are you against equality? We give special tax, medical, inheritance, & child-custody benefits to married heterosexuals. Those benefits shouldn't exist. If they didn't exist, then there wouldn't be a legitimate reason for state-sponsored marriage. If state-sponsored marriage didn't exist, then this entire debate would exist in our places of worship & in our homes, instead of in our state-houses.

Those of us with the viewpoint of abolishing state-sponsored marriage & the special treatment of such essentially disagree with 'both sides' of the issue. Gay marriage shouldn't be legal or illegal. It, like heterosexual marriage & polygamy, shouldn't be a legal matter at all. What consenting adults decide to do with each other is none of our business.

My wife & I were married in a church & our marriage is based upon our faith. Ten years ago, long before I even knew what liberty meant, I simply followed the crowd in obtaining a marriage license, so our marriage is state-sponsored. I now know that the only part of our marriage that mattered was the faith part.

This. I don't thing there should be any benefits or advantages of being married. If tax advantages played a part in your decision to get married, they you probably didn't make a very good decision.

 

[5.56'aholic]

So, are you against equality? We give special tax, medical, inheritance, & child-custody benefits to married heterosexuals. Those benefits shouldn't exist. If they didn't exist, then there wouldn't be a legitimate reason for state-sponsored marriage. If state-sponsored marriage didn't exist, then this entire debate would exist in our places of worship & in our homes, instead of in our state-houses.

Those of us with the viewpoint of abolishing state-sponsored marriage & the special treatment of such essentially disagree with 'both sides' of the issue. Gay marriage shouldn't be legal or illegal. It, like heterosexual marriage & polygamy, shouldn't be a legal matter at all. What consenting adults decide to do with each other is none of our business.

My wife & I were married in a church & our marriage is based upon our faith. Ten years ago, long before I even knew what liberty meant, I simply followed the crowd in obtaining a marriage license, so our marriage is state-sponsored. I now know that the only part of our marriage that mattered was the faith part.

Not that this matters in our discussion about illegality of consensual contracts, but I do not agree that homosexuality is always genetic nor physically natural for a person. I also do not agree that it's always a choice. If someone can be a physical hermaphrodite, then a basic understanding of human physiology insists that others can be chemical hermaphrodites while showing no obvious outward signs.

No, i am not against equality. Just pointing out the fact that the gay community brought a lot of this **** storm on themselves for using a religious coined term and shoving it in the publics face. Most people could have cared less if it were not for the media debacle it has produced. I for one could care less who a person marries.

I am not going to argue an individual's rational to be or not be gay.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

No, i am not against equality. Just pointing out the fact that the gay community brought a lot of this **** storm on themselves for using a religious coined term and shoving it in the publics face. Most people could have cared less if it were not for the media debacle it has produced. I for one could care less who a person marries.

I am not going to argue an individual's rational to be or not be gay.

What you've said is fine...if they were worried about the religious impact of marriage. However, the gay marriage advocates are using the same meaning for marriage that our state laws do. Their concern, primarily, lies with legal rights & the related contracts for which the state uses the term 'marriage'.

Simply change the laws to state "contract between 2 or more humans above the age of consent" instead of "marriage" & 1/2 of the issue is magically gone.

 

[5.56'aholic]

Simply change the laws to state "contract between 2 or more humans above the age of consent" instead of "marriage" & 1/2 of the issue is magically gone.

exactly.

 

[shibumiseeker]

Well that may not be an accurate portrayal. It could just as easily be argued that the supporters of gay marriage want the government to redefine marriage by injecting government into the traditional family. So who is really looking for bigger, more intrusive government?

Actually, some of us want the government to get out of the whole marriage issue, leaving marriage up to the religious or spiritual belief structures involved.

 

[groovatron]

So, if someone asks for examples, "you gotta bring it" even if it's based on a lie or a gross distortion; "you gotta bring it," but when called on it, it doesn't really matter anyway, move the ball and shout, "look over there." Heaven forfend I should argue with such logic. Shame indeed.

...........................We are on the internet my friend. If I use an example that is on the internet and site my source, then it is up to you whether or not you agree with it.....I already stated that I don't believe everything on Wiki, it was more of a joke than anything so stop

 

[groovatron]

Thank goodness someone did their research on Wiki's. Lets avoid any kind of REAL investigation. As Michael Scott says, "Wikipedia is the best thing ever. Anyone in the world can write anything they want about any subject. So you know you are getting the best possible information."

and I especially love this little number:


Then why quote it? If its not true, it certainly doesn't help your argument.

Hey, the homeless man I drove by today told me the economy is getting better. HALLELUJAH!! He must know what he's talking about....right?

Did you read the contents of the rest of my posts?......Do you all have nothing better than to pick this apart. The Wiki thing was part of my point, like 1%, and more for a laugh than anything. How about moving on to what I coninue to re-iterate are the real problems with this argument.

Who else wants a turn? Come get some.

 

[LEaSH]

Thank God, at least His laws still prevail at this fundamental level. We can tonight, rejoice and continue to pray.

I could hear someone like Fred Phelps saying something just like that.

 

[Shadowbeach]

.

 

[lashicoN]

Did I ever mention religion? Nope.

How about traditional is the biological sense? You know, the sense that actually works to create families?

Actually, biologically I also support homosexuals, because I hate cities and large groups of people at Wal Mart. I would love to see the Earth drop about 2 billion people in population without having a war. I believe that as population grows, liberty shrinks. You have more people to please with everyone having conflicting views on absolutely everything. The country and the world are too populated already and you want MORE families created? For what? Are we an endangered species?

Nope.

 

[mettle]

Actually, biologically I also support homosexuals, because I hate cities and large groups of people at Wal Mart. I would love to see the Earth drop about 2 billion people in population without having a war. I believe that as population grows, liberty shrinks. You have more people to please with everyone having conflicting views on absolutely everything. The country and the world are too populated already and you want MORE families created? For what? Are we an endangered species?

Nope.

Well, let's just vote in some genocide! That will take care of a lot of those annoying people for you. So, like the death panel healthcare system in the senate; are we to allow YOU to decide who gets the ax? With you sense of logic and fairness things will get interesting...

...wow.... I can't believe you posted that.

 

[melensdad]

Actually, biologically I also support homosexuals, because I hate cities and large groups of people at Wal Mart. I would love to see the Earth drop about 2 billion people in population without having a war. I believe that as population grows, liberty shrinks. You have more people to please with everyone having conflicting views on absolutely everything. The country and the world are too populated already and you want MORE families created? For what? Are we an endangered species?

Nope.

Where did I say I wanted MORE families?

Clearly you are implying things that I have NOT written. Now I would advocate STRONG family structures.

But as you seem to favor a reduction of the species, I can understand why you'd want WEAK families as there are many sociological studies that show that broken families, families without a traditional dominant father figure, and weak family structures lead to children who grow up with all sorts of problems. Specifically boys tend to have lower grades in school, higher disciplinary problems in school, higher arrest rates, and higher rates of incarceration.

 

[lashicoN]

Mettle:

This is what I wrote. "I would love to see the Earth drop about 2 billion people in population without having a war. "

Would you not describe Genocide, which is the deliberate destruction of a specific group of people, an act of war? How can you compare that to tens of thousands (globally) of families not having children on their own free will? Quality of life for human beings would also increase. More food, more jobs, adoption would go up, little Chinese and Russian babies wouldn't be starving to death when these American couples adopt them because, biologically, male couples wouldn't be able to produce their own kids with each other. Are you honestly saying you wouldn't like Earth to peaceably depopulate a little? I really didn't think I'd be the outcast on this issue.


Melensdad: What you said was "You know, the sense that actually works to create families?"

Yes, I would take that as you want to continue to create more families. What other point could you have been making? If we allow gay marriage would the entire human race stop reproducing? We've already got plenty of families created and plenty of heterosexuals to keep that population going on for ever. As for your STRONG MANLY FAMILIES WHO AREN'T WEAK GAY FAMILIES, I don't buy that. I think each family is different and it completely depends on the attitude and relationship of the parents toward their children, not their sexual organs. I would agree that there needs to be an "enforcer" type and more of a "lover" type in the parental make up, but I can admit that this is completely my opinion. I just can't see how having two men or two woman as your parents would make you a weak family. Everyone has problems and not everyone came from broken homes. I'm sticking to my guns on my theory that it is solely the relationship between the parents and children that determine how the kid will turn out, and even then, some strange kids just grow up to be weird adults. Also, what is your definition of a strong family?