Gay Marriage Vote Passes in DC City Council

@spendius,

oh, quit being such a stuffy old douchebag. None of this affects you in the slightest way.

Cycloptichorn

@Cycloptichorn,

It makes me disgruntled Cyclo.

No more Gay Hussars.

Gay Cavaliers phased out.

The Gay Gordons being danced with the guy up front shouting "form a circle".

And as for a gay night in the pub--forget it.

Oh--the cancelled poetry. My heart bleeds for the young.

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

The truth is that gay marriage in no way harms the institution of marriage. It never has or will.

the test will be whether the number of people who choose to marry declines, what happens to the strength of marriages, and what happens to the public opinion of the institution of marriage.

It will be a good ten years before we get a good read of what allowing gays to change the definition has done to the institution.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

You are helping their cause hawk by using that euphemism.

0 Replies

well, hawkeye, we here in Massachusetts are closing in on 60% of the way to your goal of ten years, and we can tell you that so far legal gay marriage hasn't changed a thing. Marriage isn't declining, societal breakdown hasn't occurred. One local columnist's prize of $10,000 to anyone who could show that gay marriage endangered their straight marriage is still unclaimed, and there are no serious contenders for it. Shortly after the decision, the Boston Globe ran a statewide poll, and support for gay marriage ran in the high 6os. Don't think anyone has done a poll since, and there hasn't even been a question. We all live with it and basically no one gives a ****. And as far as I know we still have better family values than you do--the lowest divorce rate in the country. We know. You don't. We speak from experience. It's just not a problem.

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Well Jack--Massachusetts has a reputation for being very liberal I gather so I don't suppose the residents dare do much else.

Why did the Democrat vote collapse from 62% in 2008 to 47% in 2010?

1 Reply

didn't have anything to do with gay marriage, I assure you.

0 Replies

@spendius,

btw Jack- Simply because hawk mentioned 10 years doesn't mean that is a long enough period to test out these new liberalities.

0 Replies

how long would you recommend, spendius? a millenium or two? when do you think faultlines will begin to appear? it's not happening here.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Well--I don't know how many state approved homosexual unions there are.

Perhaps you can tell us.

I refer you to the quote I gave from Pope's Dunciad

Quote:

Religion blushing veils her sacred fires,
And unawares Morality expires.

I notice that the birth rate is significantly lower than the national average as it is also in near neighbour states in the north east. And Scott Brown supports abortion as well.

Quote:

In New Hampshire, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, Vermont, and Washington, D.C., marriages for same-sex couples are legal and currently performed.

Which consist in total of about 5% of the population of the US and outside of Iowa they are all in a tiny corner of the country.

The Federal Government opposes same sex marriage which I presume means that federal employees in those states are barred. Also the President opposes these arrangements.

1 Reply

and your point is?

0 Replies

@spendius,

You asked me when I thought the faultlines would appear.

I suggested they would appear "unawares". Quoting Pope.

Then I pointed to a lower birth rate.

Then I showed I was in agreement with 45 out of 50 states and 85% of the population. I assume that wouldn't be the case if there were no potential faultlines. And the same for the Federal government.

Why would there be any opposition otherwise? Our legislators are pretty easy going I would have said compared to most both past and present.

I now realise that DC City Council is a very small entity. The thread is trying to give the impression that a bandwagon is rolling when it isn't.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

well, hawkeye, we here in Massachusetts are closing in on 60% of the way to your goal of ten years, and we can tell you that so far legal gay marriage hasn't changed a thing. Marriage isn't declining, societal breakdown hasn't occurred.

In Canada, we're coming up to the 10 year anniversary for the banns having been read for the first legal same-sex marriage. The fellas are still married, life goes on normally for other people who want to marry, whether same-sex or one of each.

One of the more interesting phenomena has been the increasing numbers of male-female couples who attend the same-sex wedding trade shows - apparently they like the atmosphere there better - less stress, folks being more open-minded overall. Mebbe it's because of the 10-year anniversary coming up - there's been quite a bit of coverage of the same-sex wedding industry lately.

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

If gay marriage does more harm, then we should be able to see that in those states that have gay marriage a noticeable difference in the quality of life as a married person.

But your measure was the sky is falling. Are you suggesting that if we take away or grant legal rights to a very few it will be noticeable, and noticeable straight away ? People tolerate all sorts of things that are bad for them. If they were to worry about everything that was harmful society would collapse. But dont mistake that for not caring or not having a negative effect.

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

Quote:

In Canada, we're coming up to the 10 year anniversary for the banns having been read for the first legal same-sex marriage.

Is that true E? Banns read out in church three Sundays running? Checking on "consanguinity, affinity or spiritual relationships". Notice for objections.

Can they commit bigamy? Can they have polygamy. Can they have sex? How do you define sex E? I hope it isn't the reflex spasm of the male genital.

My side, the majority side, the vast majority side, is hamstrung because we can't use the words we would like to use. We have to discuss these matters in the terms the minority won't be offended by. We are censored. Free speech has been set aside.

"Less stress" eh? That's the whole point. Escaping from women. I can see the bloody point too the state women are in these days. When we have all opted for less stress and escaped from the trials and tribulations of women--then what?

Waking up with a chap who needs a shave and has a hairy chest and a bald patch is not all that bad I suppose.

4 Replies

@spendius,

You know why so many women support homosexuals ? Most women at some stage experiment with other women. If there is anything wrong with it, then they might develop a guilty conscience..we cant have improper acts followed by a guilty conscience.

Women also want protection and if men are going to draw the line at anyone who has sex with men, then it could be the thin end of the wedge. Better to fight the war on someone else's turf. Women want protection AND equality...you can tell this policy was designed by a woman.

1 Reply

As it's already been pointed out, the USA is definitely not the first country to adopt same sex marriages. We don't have to speculate on what the effect is, we know that gay marriage has had no effect on the institution.

The "sky is not falling" is not meant to be taken literal. It's meant to point out how totally stupid the arguments have been put forward by the anti-gay types. This idiotic notion that preventing homosexuals access to marriage is in any way protecting marriage is not substantiated in anything we actually observe or have ever observed. The idea that if we let gays get marriage the institution will collapse is the most half-witted attempt to mask bigotry ever.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Quote:
In Canada, we're coming up to the 10 year anniversary for the banns having been read for the first legal same-sex marriage.

Is that true E? Banns read out in church three Sundays running? Checking on "consanguinity, affinity or spiritual relationships". Notice for objections.

yup. the whole thing. the lads wanted the full religious marriage deal, not just a legally-recognized civil union. wouldn't be my gig, but that's what they wanted and got.

0 Replies

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

You know why so many women support homosexuals ? Most women at some stage experiment with other women. If there is anything wrong with it, then they might develop a guilty conscience..we cant have improper acts followed by a guilty conscience.

More than just women support homosexuals.

Ionus wrote:

Women also want protection and if men are going to draw the line at anyone who has sex with men, then it could be the thin end of the wedge. Better to fight the war on someone else's turf.

Supporters of gay rights are supporting the rights of both male and female homosexuals, so your statement is once again, half-assed.

Ionus wrote:

Women want protection AND equality...you can tell this policy was designed by a woman.

Actually, it was a man...

wikipedia wrote:

D.C. Councilman David Catania introduced the Religious Freedom And Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act 2009 on October 6, 2009 to allow same-sex couples to marry in the district.

Not that it matters.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

"Less stress" eh? That's the whole point. Escaping from women.

not sure how you're going to make that work in a same-sex marriage with two women, but good luck to you.

0 Replies

Gay Marriage Vote Passes in DC City Council

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know