New York Legalizes Gay Marriage

[dalThor]

Before you go blasting me as a homophobe, I'm not. I'm coming at this from the perspective that it's yet another attack on religion

:rolleyes:

Gee, last I knew more and more religions are becoming more gay friendly themselves. They even allow the teh eval gheys to become clergy members. The horror.

Let me add that icon again because one just isn't enough, :rolleyes:

Edit: forgot a word...

[IheartTesla]

This bill actually has a religious exemption so its purely a state sanctioned marriage. No religious organization is forced to marry gay couples if they don't want to.

At least read the fucking bill.

[Brienne the Beauty]

Homosexuals that typically abhor religion

[....]

Before you go blasting me as a homophobe,

Oh no, I don't see where we could get the idea you are a homophobe. I don't see any indication of that at all in your post. There is truly nothing that could give us a hint that you are less than supportive of our LGBT friends.

PS I am a Christian and I support gay rights. If you want to be a homophobe, find a different justification than perverting religion. Gay people have never tried to hinder me in the practice of my religion and I have known gay Christians too.

[Kelli Fury]

Awesome! Now I can have hope that there will be a law passed allowing me to marry that 12 year old neighbor girl!

Let me get this right. Homosexuals that typically abhor religion are rejoicing that they are finally allowed to take part in the historically religious ceremony of marriage? :thumbsup: Unions that allow all the benefits of a religious marriage not enough? I'm glad I still live in one of the majority states.

Before you go blasting me as a homophobe, I'm not. I'm coming at this from the perspective that it's yet another attack on religion.

((runs away at full sprint donning flame retardent suit))

Yes, you are. Other people being allowed a legal right has no effect on your religion at all. How do I know that? My Christianity is doing just fine despite the rights of others to do all kinds of shit I find morally wrong, icky, annoying, ect. A religious marriage provides no legal benefits, and you and your pastor or reverend are welcome to give those out. What the state gives out are marriages that provide legal property rights and joint tax filing and benefit sharing abilities. No religion or government owns the word marriage. If you do not support a legal system that allows gay couples the exact same benefits under the exact same title they provide to straight couples, you are spreading discrimination, and yes, homophobia. It is Christians like you that make me feel ashamed of people of faith in general, seems like all too often it is used as an excuse to prop up ridiculous prejudices and attitudes about other people. Your religion should be about how you govern your own actions and your relationship with God, not about telling others how to live their lives.

[Xenophon]

Let me get this right. Homosexuals that typically abhor religion are rejoicing that they are finally allowed to take part in the historically religious ceremony of marriage?

Uh, you do realize that non-religious marriages have always been part of the common law except for a brief period in 1700s when they were banned as an attempt to stamp out religious dissenters? (In passing, I think your claim that re. homosexuality and religiosity is also total b.s., but I don't have any statistics to say one way or the other. Do you, or did you just make that up?)

[Ormond]

Let me get this right. Homosexuals that typically abhor religion are rejoicing that they are finally allowed to take part in the historically religious ceremony of marriage? :thumbsup: Unions that allow all the benefits of a religious marriage not enough? I'm glad I still live in one of the majority states.

Before you go blasting me as a homophobe, I'm not. I'm coming at this from the perspective that it's yet another attack on religion.

Gay people in the USA do not typically "abhor religion." The last time I saw figures that attempted to compare gay and lesbian people to heterosexuals on religious beliefs, gay men were just as or more "religious" on average as straight ones in the USA. Lesbians were less religious on average than straight women, but there are still a lot of religious lesbians out there.

No church or other religious body will be forced to hold same-sex weddings. It's just that the many who already DO hold same-sex weddings in New York will now be able to have them done with government marriage certificates involved, just like the heterosexuals.

[Xenophon]

This bill actually has a religious exemption so its purely a state sanctioned marriage. No religious organization is forced to marry gay couples if they don't want to.

At least read the fucking bill.

In fairness to the guy, he wasn't worried about churches being forced to marry gay couples. He seems to think marriage = religious, homosexuality = anti-religious, therefore homosexuality + marriage = DEATH TO RELIGION!!!!

[Commodore]

If you do not support a legal system that allows gay couples the exact same benefits under the exact same title they provide to straight couples, you are spreading discrimination, and yes, homophobia.

Being married should not entitle anyone to benefits or special treatment, straight or otherwise. You are spreading discrimination by advocating state sanctioning of marriage. A state definition of marriage is discriminatory by it's very nature. The law passed in NY defines what is and isn't a marriage.

Your religion should be about how you govern your own actions and your relationship with God, not about telling others how to live their lives.

No one was stopping gays from marrying before. There were no police going around shutting down wedding ceremonies.

It's sad that people think matrimony is only valid if it is state sanctioned. To see people cheering in the streets for the state's blessing, very depressing.

[Brienne the Beauty]

It's funny how bigots always seem to think they are not bigots. "I'm not racist, but.." or "Before you go blasting me as a homophobe, I'm not." or whatever. It shows a hilarious lack of self-awareness.

God only knows what Sturn would think a homophobe behaves like that excludes himself. Perhaps he thinks that you are not a homophobe if you have never gone so far as to burn a gay person at the stake. Or perhaps he thinks that homophobia is a real phobia like arachnophobia and homophobes are people that leap onto a table screaming at the sight of a gay person.

[IheartTesla]

In fairness to the guy, he wasn't worried about churches being forced to marry gay couples. He seems to think marriage = religious, homosexuality = anti-religious, therefore homosexuality + marriage = DEATH TO RELIGION!!!!

I supposed an atheist like myself should never dream of getting state sanction for cohabitational contracts with another willing individual then.

I'll just prepare myself for raising little bastards without even the hope of getting tax deductions for spawning.

[Underfoot]

Awesome! Now I can have hope that there will be a law passed allowing me to marry that 12 year old neighbor girl!

Let me get this right. Homosexuals that typically abhor religion are rejoicing that they are finally allowed to take part in the historically religious ceremony of marriage? :thumbsup: Unions that allow all the benefits of a religious marriage not enough? I'm glad I still live in one of the majority states.

Before you go blasting me as a homophobe, I'm not. I'm coming at this from the perspective that it's yet another attack on religion.

Did you REALLY just compare homosexuality to pedophilia? Guess I shouldn't be surprised...

So atheists shouldn't be allowed to get married, and when we do, it's an attack on religion? Trust me, religion is doing just fine. Last I heard, churches were still tax exempt, the huge, huge majority of elected officials are religious, every president the U.S. has been religious (Christian, specifically), and the phrases "under God" and "in God we trust" are still in our PoA and on our money, respectively.

Religion isn't under attack, so stop your whining.

[Xenophon]

Being married should not entitle anyone to benefits or special treatment, straight or otherwise. You are spreading discrimination by advocating state sanctioning of marriage. A state definition of marriage is discriminatory by it's very nature. The law passed in NY defines what is and isn't a marriage.

Of course it is, but guess what--most people don't want to live in some libertarian paradise where there is no social recognition of marriage. Most people want to society to recognize some form of marriage and promote it, not only by giving married people benefits, but also by imposing obligations on them. And, yes, it is highly discriminatory for the state to say 2 people can marry but three can't, but, hey, most people want the law to discriminate on the basis of some of their values. And if you try to get rid of that sort of discrimination completely, then have fun trying to sort out the mess when someone's dying in the hospital and his non-state-sanctioned partner wants one treatment, but his equally non-state sanctioned mistress wants something else, and his parents and siblings want some third thing.

I supposed an atheist like myself should never dream of getting state sanction for cohabitational contracts with another willing individual then.

I'll just prepare myself for raising little bastards without even the hope of getting tax deductions for spawning.

Clearly. In fact, just typing those words probably caused an angel to lose its wings. ;)

[Lord of Oop North]

No, sorry, but there is no "in farness to the guy". He was ignorant of what this decision actually meant, and came to the dumbass conclusion that granting equal rights to homosexuals was an attack on religion, as if the rights of the religious were being impeded at all by this decision. Such foolishness should be pointed out and mocked.

[Lightsnake]

Awesome! Now I can have hope that there will be a law passed allowing me to marry that 12 year old neighbor girl!

Let me get this right. Homosexuals that typically abhor religion are rejoicing that they are finally allowed to take part in the historically religious ceremony of marriage? :thumbsup: Unions that allow all the benefits of a religious marriage not enough? I'm glad I still live in one of the majority states.

Good god, shut your mouth.

Hate to tell you, but marriage isn't religious. I mean, REALLY hate to tell you, but those dirty atheists can get married in any civil ceremony they have. I mean, it's not like throughout history, marriage was a civil tool to secure alliances between families and nations and the like. The Roman Empire favored marriage as a civil tool and a marriage wasn't expected to survive. The rest of history? Religious ceremony, sure. And a civil/political tool

[Lightsnake]

Being married should not entitle anyone to benefits or special treatment, straight or otherwise. You are spreading discrimination by advocating state sanctioning of marriage. A state definition of marriage is discriminatory by it's very nature. The law passed in NY defines what is and isn't a marriage.

No one was stopping gays from marrying before. There were no police going around shutting down wedding ceremonies.

It's sad that people think matrimony is only valid if it is state sanctioned. To see people cheering in the streets for the state's blessing, very depressing.

Look up what the benefits actually entail before you make ignorant proclamations.

[cdawnb]

Awesome! Now I can have hope that there will be a law passed allowing me to marry that 12 year old neighbor girl!

Let me get this right. Homosexuals that typically abhor religion are rejoicing that they are finally allowed to take part in the historically religious ceremony of marriage? :thumbsup: Unions that allow all the benefits of a religious marriage not enough? I'm glad I still live in one of the majority states.

Before you go blasting me as a homophobe, I'm not. I'm coming at this from the perspective that it's yet another attack on religion.

((runs away at full sprint donning flame retardent suit))

I am not sure how this stops you from worshipping in any way you choose. All it does is let one segment of the population (that does *nothing* to hurt anyone) have the same legal protections that straight people do.

And stop comparing being gay to pedophilia.

Just. Stop.

[Xenophon]

No, sorry, but there is no "in farness to the guy". He was ignorant of what this decision actually meant, and came to the dumbass conclusion that granting equal rights to homosexuals was an attack on religion, as if the rights of the religious were being impeded at all by this decision. Such foolishness should be pointed out and mocked.

I generally find it's best to mock the actual dumbass things that people say, rather than something we assume they said. Based on what he wrote, this guy wasn't objecting to the bill because he didn't know about the exemptions for religious institutions. He was objecting to it because in his view, gay couples getting married is in itself an attack on religion, due to the "typical" gay stance towards religion. That's not only a different position, it's a much more risible one. (As you may have noted from the rest of my post, being fair to this guy involves pointing out just how idiotic his argument is.)

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

There are all kinds of restrictions on marriage. Sort of true. There are definitely restrictions.

You can marry an 18 year old but not a 17 year old, False

you can marry 2nd cousins but not 1st cousins, False

you can marry one person but not two. True

More importantly, even if you have to travel to another state to get married in one of the first two categories, chances are very good that when you return home, your state will legally recognise your marriage, and grant you all of the benefits (and expect the same responsibilities of you) that a different-sex marriage grants. DOMA and the various states' anti-same-sex-marriage laws mean that this is not the case for ssm.

Plus, well, it's not sanctimonious to look for equal treatment. If you want to abolish all civil marriage, then more power to you, but don't appear to only show up in ssm discussions and then act surprised that you look like a homophobe and are called out on it. (Though at least you didn't claim you weren't; that 'honour' only goes to Sturn, so far.)

[Spaceman Hobbes]

First, good for New York.

Second, Homosexual marriage ONLY becomes an attack on religion when a non-religious entity forces religious institutions to acknowledge gay marriage. That currently isn't happening in New York. The state is a non-religious institution and is not supposed to dictate policy based on religious objections. "My religion doesn't believe that marriage exists outside of one man and one woman." That's fine. The Government/The Man/Big Rainbow isn't trying to strip you of that belief. They simply are 1) acknowledging an alternative view and 2) protecting both views equally.

If you want to take that a step further and say that "The government is encouraging immoral actions to the determent of America" you're not making an argument based on religious freedom, but one on homophobia and you need to get the fuck over it.

All it does is let one segment of the population (that does *nothing* to hurt anyone) have the same legal protections that straight people do.

It hurts him. How is he supposed to sleep at night when he knows that gay people can be married?! And we rings! And get the tax benefits that come with it. And make GAY BABIES!

[CryHavoc]

Awesome! Now I can have hope that there will be a law passed allowing me to marry that 12 year old neighbor girl!

Let me get this right. Homosexuals that typically abhor religion are rejoicing that they are finally allowed to take part in the historically religious ceremony of marriage? :thumbsup: Unions that allow all the benefits of a religious marriage not enough? I'm glad I still live in one of the majority states.

Before you go blasting me as a homophobe, I'm not. I'm coming at this from the perspective that it's yet another attack on religion.

((runs away at full sprint donning flame retardent suit))

Ignoring the other inaccuracies of your post...when your historically religious ceremony of marriage is actually just a religious ceremony, sure. Absolutely. Civil unions for all from the government and call it whatever you damn well please. But when the government is sanctioning them--yeah, they should have the same name. They should be equal in name as well as in practical effect.