Marriage Equality Comes to New York

Enter at your own risk. There's bound to be some heated discussions in here about the elephant and the donkey.

Moderators: selective_soldier, drtom, edu999, devilnuts

Marriage Equality Comes to New York

Postby furface » Fri Jun 24, 2011 10:09 pm

It's a deal!! NY Senate passed Marriage Equality about 2200 EDT. Story here.

NY becomes the 6th state with marriage equality. This victory for equality has just DOUBLED the number of real folks in the US living with marriage equality.
"Do not ascribe malice to that which can be reasonably explained by ignorance ... or incompetence."
Isaac Asimov
User avatar
furface
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1175
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2004 7:35 pm
Location: The Colony, TX

Re: Marriage Equality Comes to New York

Postby Gaydudelaf » Fri Jun 24, 2011 10:38 pm

This is so cool! I hope to have more news like this from other states!

Here is an interesting excerpt from an article i read today!

"Dolan's twenty-first century pronouncements on gay marriage will surely sound to our grandchildren's grandchildren like those of nineteenth century clerics' on slavery: "There is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many regulating it. It is not then, we conclude, immoral" (Rev. Alexander Campbell). "The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example" (Rev. Dr. Richard Furman, 1838). "The hope of civilization itself hangs on the defeat of Negro suffrage" (prominent Presbyterian pastor). Perhaps the Archbishop would prefer to rely on the authority of the Vatican. Here's an 1866 statement from the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: "Slavery itself . . . is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law. . . The vendor should do nothing which might endanger the life, virtue, or Catholic faith of the slave."

I would love to find more of these (hint hint mister librarian). These are what needs to be sent out to battle the fundies!
------------------------------------------------------
Chip
http://www.myspace.com/chip_council
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id= ... ef=profile
"Bring back the Frozen Chicken Position (FCP)"
User avatar
Gaydudelaf
Member
 
Posts: 427
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 9:21 am
Location: Yuma, AZ

Re: Marriage Equality Comes to New York

Postby catapult » Fri Jun 24, 2011 11:58 pm

Just want to get my arguments full proof.

What do you say to those who believe a marriage between a man and a woman is not natural?

I don't really care for the argument that there is homosexuality among animals. I mean there is a lot of bad stuff that goes on among animals. Like eating your lover after sex!

Can you say it is like the discrimination that used to exist against inter-racial marriages? Not really the same. That's still a man and a woman.

Certainly there is the argument that ANY two humans should have the legal right to form a union. But I can sort of see their point that they call their's "marriage" and the definition of that is being a union between a man and a woman. So why can't gays just call their union something else and gain the same rights. The Civil Union argument, I guess. It's just a name isn't it? As long as we have the same rights, who cares what it is called?

I personally don't feel a need or desire to get "married" but I am legally entitled to the rights of marriage and I wouldn't mind some ceremony with my partner to tie the knot and make a commitment. But I sure don't need to call it a "marriage" or want to walk down the aisle like they do. Yuk!
User avatar
catapult
Member
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:35 pm

Re: Marriage Equality Comes to New York

Postby Davy » Sat Jun 25, 2011 5:08 am

catapult, it's a matter of principle. Civil unions for gays and marriage for straights is like white drinking fountains and colored drinking fountains. If it's civil unions for everyone, then that would be ideal because government shouldn't endorse marriage any more than it endorses taking communion. But as long as the law calls straight unions one thing and gay unions something else, the specter of second-class citizenship remains. Besides, there are 1138 federally-recognized rights and protections that come with marriage. There are less than half of that number that come with civil unions. For instance, civil unions do not grant next-of-kin status. They also require that the partners live together. Marriage is valid whether the spouses live together or not.

As far as the arguments go, I do believe that activists and scientists should give up the biological and physiological premises. Even with the human genome completely mapped, no researcher has ever found a so-called "gay gene". Animal sexual behavior cannot be compared to human sexual behavior. I really think that they should give up the "born this way" argument entirely because it's a dead end. The fact is that it doesn't matter why people are gay, straight, bisexual, or any other label they choose to give themselves. In a free country, we have a right to be with anyone we want to. We have a right to make our own decisions as to who we want to marry. And we have a right to not be discriminated against because of those choices. That's the easiest and most compelling argument to make and it doesn't require any science to back it up.
User avatar
Davy
Member
 
Posts: 135
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2006 2:36 pm
Location: Anchorage

Re: Marriage Equality Comes to New York

Postby catapult » Sat Jun 25, 2011 11:02 am

Davy wrote:catapult, it's a matter of principle. Civil unions for gays and marriage for straights is like white drinking fountains and colored drinking fountains. If it's civil unions for everyone, then that would be ideal because government shouldn't endorse marriage any more than it endorses taking communion. But as long as the law calls straight unions one thing and gay unions something else, the specter of second-class citizenship remains. Besides, there are 1138 federally-recognized rights and protections that come with marriage. There are less than half of that number that come with civil unions. For instance, civil unions do not grant next-of-kin status. They also require that the partners live together. Marriage is valid whether the spouses live together or not.


Good points Davy. I didn't know Civil Unions were so much less than marriage. That's certainly vitally important and ends the argument that civil unions should be enough. You would think the opponents of gay marriages would make civil unions absolutely entirely equal and then they could have their precious "marriage" word and there wouldn't be so much of a battle about this and we could move on to more important things. But you may argue that even if the Civil Unions were absolutely equal, there would still be the second-class stigma thing.

Davy wrote:As far as the arguments go, I do believe that activists and scientists should give up the biological and physiological premises. Even with the human genome completely mapped, no researcher has ever found a so-called "gay gene". Animal sexual behavior cannot be compared to human sexual behavior. I really think that they should give up the "born this way" argument entirely because it's a dead end. The fact is that it doesn't matter why people are gay, straight, bisexual, or any other label they choose to give themselves. In a free country, we have a right to be with anyone we want to. We have a right to make our own decisions as to who we want to marry. And we have a right to not be discriminated against because of those choices. That's the easiest and most compelling argument to make and it doesn't require any science to back it up.


Well, I think it definitely does matter why people are gay. If it were proved that we were just conditioned to become gay by psychological factors, and some of them were negative factors such as lack of ideal parenting, abuse, etc., then the "you can change" folks would have a field day.

You can say we have a right to choose who we want to love, but if they can prove your choice has been psychologically influenced by your lousy parents, are you prepared to say, okay, so what? They will just say being gay is a dysfunction.

I hope they find the gene, although I know that opens up the problem of parents choosing to eliminate that gene or abort their child if the gene is detected. Creepy.
User avatar
catapult
Member
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:35 pm

Re: Marriage Equality Comes to New York

Postby stevestr » Sat Jun 25, 2011 12:34 pm

Honestly I'm not quite sure how I feel on all of this.

Having lived through the California mess I can't believe this is the end of the argument for NY. Yes, they do not have the initiative process California has to keep placing things on the ballot, but I can't believe the religious right will just roll over. More-than-likely there will be a brief period where marriages are allowed while the right tries to get their people in office. Then this law will be rescinded and there will be thousands of marriages in limbo.

Call me cynical.

The marriage issue needs to be pushed on a Federal level. Leaving it to the states is 50 pieces of mess. Then again, I am looking at it from the rights perspective - as Davy has said a civil union is not equal to marriage. Sadly, in Colorado, I don't think we get either - no civil unions and a constitutional amendment against marriage.
"'TICKLE CHALLENGE?????' First of all, almost no male, straight or gay, in their 20's, is going to be up for a tickle challenge. [...]I'd be mortified if you suggested that as something to do." -- Blackmet, 6/4/2007
User avatar
stevestr
Member
 
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 3:14 am
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Marriage Equality Comes to New York

Postby stevestr » Sat Jun 25, 2011 12:45 pm

Davy wrote:As far as the arguments go, I do believe that activists and scientists should give up the biological and physiological premises. Even with the human genome completely mapped, no researcher has ever found a so-called "gay gene". Animal sexual behavior cannot be compared to human sexual behavior. I really think that they should give up the "born this way" argument entirely because it's a dead end. The fact is that it doesn't matter why people are gay, straight, bisexual, or any other label they choose to give themselves. In a free country, we have a right to be with anyone we want to. We have a right to make our own decisions as to who we want to marry. And we have a right to not be discriminated against because of those choices. That's the easiest and most compelling argument to make and it doesn't require any science to back it up.


Catapult wrote:Well, I think it definitely does matter why people are gay. If it were proved that we were just conditioned to become gay by psychological factors, and some of them were negative factors such as lack of ideal parenting, abuse, etc., then the "you can change" folks would have a field day.

You can say we have a right to choose who we want to love, but if they can prove your choice has been psychologically influenced by your lousy parents, are you prepared to say, okay, so what? They will just say being gay is a dysfunction.

I hope they find the gene, although I know that opens up the problem of parents choosing to eliminate that gene or abort their child if the gene is detected. Creepy.


Davey, the problem with the argument about the right not to be discriminated against based on who we want to marry is that it brings up the old and cliche arguments about if gay marriage is allowed then what is to stop Farmer Bob from marrying his cow. As long as marriage is held as a religious ceremony to most then these arguments will prevail. Marriage should have been set up as a legal system process and not something enshrined in religious pomp-and-circumstance.

Honestly, I guess I would like to believe my gayness was from a gene. I really don't feel that I was abused as a child -- I had a normal, suburban upbringing and lord knows my dad tried to get me to do masculine things like play flag football when I was younger. My first gay recollection was at age 8 (I always was a late bloomer) in the locker room with my uncle. It was one of the first times I was in a locker room and I was simply fascinated with the scenery. Some might have said it was age 5 or so when I would play with the kitchen set in pre-school instead of hanging out with the boys. Who knows? I didn't even question my sexuality until puberty at 13 and still thought it was just a phase that would pass. I didn't come out until 22.

Perhaps I could change - it would be a sad and unfruitful marriage - but it would not be who I am. I was heading down that slope - I almost got engaged right out of high school. Thank god something took over and caused me to break that mess off.
"'TICKLE CHALLENGE?????' First of all, almost no male, straight or gay, in their 20's, is going to be up for a tickle challenge. [...]I'd be mortified if you suggested that as something to do." -- Blackmet, 6/4/2007
User avatar
stevestr
Member
 
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 3:14 am
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Marriage Equality Comes to New York

Postby nimby » Sat Jun 25, 2011 5:48 pm

I agree. Why shouldn't people be able to choose who they build a life with? I've been saying it all a long. As long as it's between consenting adult homosapiens, who cares.
"Why do we have asteroids in the hemisphere and hemmorroids in the a$$ ? "
User avatar
nimby
Veteran Member
 
Posts: 2908
Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 3:35 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: Marriage Equality Comes to New York

Postby Davy » Sat Jun 25, 2011 7:13 pm

stevestr wrote:Davey, the problem with the argument about the right not to be discriminated against based on who we want to marry is that it brings up the old and cliche arguments about if gay marriage is allowed then what is to stop Farmer Bob from marrying his cow.

Anyone who would think that to be a valid comparison is pretty twisted. It's as simple as consenting adults should have the right to marry other consenting adults. Yes, I know the naysayers would come back with "If two men can marry, then why can't a brother and sister marry?" and "If two women can marry, then what's to stop a man and three women from marrying?". And that is a valid argument. My response is, "Why not?" As disgusting as the thought is to most people, if a brother and sister are both fully consenting adults and of sound mind to make such a decision, then yes, I do believe they should be allowed to marry. I would also support the legal rights of polygamists/polyamorists to marry too. We need to stop telling adults what they can and can't do with their lives. If it doesn't affect me, I really don't care what people do and neither should anyone else. Nuff said.

Honestly, I guess I would like to believe my gayness was from a gene. I really don't feel that I was abused as a child -- I had a normal, suburban upbringing and lord knows my dad tried to get me to do masculine things like play flag football when I was younger. My first gay recollection was at age 8 (I always was a late bloomer) in the locker room with my uncle. It was one of the first times I was in a locker room and I was simply fascinated with the scenery. Some might have said it was age 5 or so when I would play with the kitchen set in pre-school instead of hanging out with the boys. Who knows? I didn't even question my sexuality until puberty at 13 and still thought it was just a phase that would pass. I didn't come out until 22.

When you get science and genetics involved, the assumption is that there are only two possible sexual orientations: gay and straight. The genetic assumption does not explain bisexuals. It also doesn't explain how some people can be bi-curious, omnisexual, pansexual, asexual, or fluid in some other way.

There are other implications to consider should a "gay gene" ever be found. For one thing, the religious reich would suddenly favor abortion. Also, the way genes are carried down is through reproduction. If gays aren't reproducing (as they have in the past due to social stigma), then eventually the "gay gene" would go away and there would theoretically be no more gay people.

Perhaps I could change - it would be a sad and unfruitful marriage - but it would not be who I am. I was heading down that slope - I almost got engaged right out of high school. Thank god something took over and caused me to break that mess off.

Maybe you could change if you wanted to and the motivation was your own and not because some religion indoctrinated you to do so. What doesn't work is when people "change" out of guilt or coercion. That's why the "ex-gay" thing leads to so many suicides. But then again, maybe like most people, you couldn't change if you wanted to and that's okay. I just wish we could all get to a point where there is no need for labels or hangups about who's banging who or who's marrying who. In a free country, every adult has the right to make their own decisions as to what is best for them.

/rant
User avatar
Davy
Member
 
Posts: 135
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2006 2:36 pm
Location: Anchorage


Return to Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron