53
   

New York New York!

 
 
Fido
 
  -3  
Reply Sat 25 Jun, 2011 06:59 am
@tsarstepan,
tsarstepan wrote:

I hope that the US Congress addresses this issue soon and just makes the whole state by state journey moot by making same sex marriage a national law.

As if we need a law for or against... What did people do before they had a state telling them what they could and could not do??? Let me give you an example... Before for there were left turn arrows people had the sense to turn left when the traffic cleared... Now some idiots will sit at lights with no arrows waiting for an arrow to damned scared of breaking the law to get anywhere... Those people don't need a law, or an arrow... They need a brain... The object of government is good, and there is no good that comes out of controlling natural behavior while leaving unnatural and antinatural behavior unregulated... There is nothing natural to capitalism... It has the support of ideology and plenty of evidence to prove it does more harm than good... But people accept the ideology even when the thing proves itself destructive of society, humanity and morality... A law is no cure for the want of common sense...
sozobe
 
  5  
Reply Sat 25 Jun, 2011 07:06 am
http://micahjesse.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Empire_state_Building_rainbow.jpg

Whee!
Fido
 
  -3  
Reply Sat 25 Jun, 2011 07:07 am
@sozobe,
datzogay
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sat 25 Jun, 2011 07:11 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
that is not obstructed by law. To MY mind, it is not a religious issue.
Your mind is but one. It is a legal issue that is rooted in the national religion of Cjristianity. When all 1300 benefits pof the marroed state are denioed to folks because of their sexual orientation, thats descrimination in my mind.

Are you therefore against gay couples not being able to share in their various benefit plans or savings as JTWROS's?
visitation rights for "families"

Your support of this kind of descrimination is one of omission rather than comission
farmerman
 
  5  
Reply Sat 25 Jun, 2011 07:12 am
@Fido,
anybody ever tell you that you make no sense? Which way do you suggest we go?
Fido
 
  2  
Reply Sat 25 Jun, 2011 07:40 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

anybody ever tell you that you make no sense? Which way do you suggest we go?
Go up!!! There is always room at the top...
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Sat 25 Jun, 2011 08:21 am
@farmerman,
I sincerely don 't care.
I thawt that in that it seems
to mean so much to the homosexuals, emotionally,
we might as well give them what thay want,
but on reflection, the people on the other side might feel equally against it
and the government belongs equally to BOTH sides.

I cannot agree with their argument
that it is an issue of whether thay were human, or not.
That was never in dispute.





David
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Sat 25 Jun, 2011 08:27 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
anybody ever tell you that you make no sense?
Fido can correct me, if I 'm mistaken,
but in one of his posts, he said that he is mentally disturbed
and he mentioned a particular mental disorder.
Ragman
 
  3  
Reply Sat 25 Jun, 2011 08:38 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Jeezus! They have the right to be married, as much as any other couple. they should have all the privileges (insurance bennies and the rights) as any other couple, for pity's sake! Homosexual marriages are no more of a burden to society. In fact, these unions are less of a threat to society as these unions allows benefits which would prevent one of the couple, if chronicly or terminall ill, to not require taxpayers dollars to be treated, a hospital recovery or be buried.

This is just dragging down the gov't effectiveness which is at an all time low. Just legalize it and get this matter resolved. This issue has the feel of the civil rights movement of the '60s. How brain dead can gov't and society be?
JPB
 
  0  
Reply Sat 25 Jun, 2011 08:49 am
@Ragman,
Ragman wrote:

This issue has the feel of the civil rights movement of the '60s. How brain dead can gov't and society be?


Indeed it does, but on a lesser scale. Yes, gays are discriminated against and should be allowed all the rights of every citizen. I wouldn't go so far as to say that a gay man or woman today faces the same level of discrimination as a black man or woman in the 60s. That doesn't mean we shouldn't work to correct the bias, but I don't think they're equivalent.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jun, 2011 08:50 am
@Ragman,
Its only a technical issue of what the state government recognizes.

I 'm not going to argue against it; (nor for it).





David
0 Replies
 
jespah
 
  3  
Reply Sat 25 Jun, 2011 08:52 am
@jcboy,
Yeehaw!

I grew up on LI and one of my HS classmates became State Senator from that district. We launched a bit of a Facebook campaign to call/email him to get him to vote for same-sex marriage. And ... he still voted no (he's Republican/Conservative John Flanagan). So we are gonna give him a serious hard time at the next reunion. We'll haul out the bad Jr. High photos of him.

BTW here's a list of the roll call: http://tullyspage.blogspot.com/2011/06/roll-call-new-york-adopts-marriage.html
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Sat 25 Jun, 2011 08:53 am
@JPB,
Ragman wrote:
This issue has the feel of the civil rights movement of the '60s.
How brain dead can gov't and society be?
JPB wrote:
Indeed it does, but on a lesser scale. Yes, gays are discriminated against and should be allowed all the rights of every citizen. I wouldn't go so far as to say that a gay man or woman today faces the same level of discrimination as a black man or woman in the 60s. That doesn't mean we shouldn't work to correct the bias, but I don't think they're equivalent.
Well, in fairness to the homosexuals: thay HAVE gotten beaten to death.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Sat 25 Jun, 2011 08:57 am
@jespah,
jespah wrote:
Yeehaw!

I grew up on LI and one of my HS classmates became State Senator from that district. We launched a bit of a Facebook campaign to call/email him to get him to vote for same-sex marriage. And ... he still voted no (he's Republican/Conservative John Flanagan). So we are gonna give him a serious hard time at the next reunion. We'll haul out the bad Jr. High photos of him.

BTW here's a list of the roll call: http://tullyspage.blogspot.com/2011/06/roll-call-new-york-adopts-marriage.html
I 'm usually a pretty opinionated guy,
but this time, I 'm glad that I don 't have a vote in the matter.
tsarstepan
 
  2  
Reply Sat 25 Jun, 2011 09:06 am
@jespah,
Thanks for the link Jespah. I feel much better now that I know that Michael Gianaris, my current state senator voted yes.

Quote:
Gianaris (D) Yes

My district's previous state senator, Sen. George Onorato, voted against the measure the last time it was around. I let him know of my disappointment with a stern letter and my vote at last primary election.
0 Replies
 
jespah
 
  3  
Reply Sat 25 Jun, 2011 09:08 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Flanagan was playing to his Conservative base. Kinda sad - there were gay people in our class, and some of our classmates have children who have come out -- like most groups of people do, I suppose, have some sort of a connection or another. Many of us have married, and consider it to be one of the defining and beautiful moments of our lives -- and to deny that to others, man, just to pander to one's Conservative base, it's unfortunate.
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Sat 25 Jun, 2011 09:19 am
@jespah,
jespah wrote:
Flanagan was playing to his Conservative base. Kinda sad - there were gay people in our class, and some of our classmates have children who have come out -- like most groups of people do, I suppose, have some sort of a connection or another. Many of us have married, and consider it to be one of the defining and beautiful moments of our lives -- and to deny that to others, man, just to pander to one's Conservative base, it's unfortunate.
That democracy.

The issue is democracy v. the rights of the Individual.





David
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Sat 25 Jun, 2011 09:38 am
@jcboy,
We heard this on the radio last night driving home from the gala. Little cheers from the front and back seats of the car. It was a really nice cherry on the awesome sundae of an evening we'd already had.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 25 Jun, 2011 12:42 pm
When other jurisdictions, such as the state of California, had referenda or had legislatures which passed laws forbidding the issuance of gay marriage licenses, the liberals got some liberal judge to make a tortured legal claim that the Constitution forbids the banning of gay marriage, thus disinfranchising the millions of people who voted for it.

We, the conservatives, should now bring the New York law to court and get some conservative judge to create a false argument that the Constitution forbids the legalizing of gay marriage, thus disinfranchising the New York citizens who passed it.
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Reply Sat 25 Jun, 2011 01:20 pm
@Brandon9000,
So you don't prefer judicial independence, Brandon? Can you really "get some judge"?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » New York New York!
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/05/2021 at 03:38:59