New York Legalizes Gay Marriage

[Calderownz]

BREAKING NEWS
ALBANY, N.Y. — New York state senators Friday night voted 33-29 to legalize gay marriage, a breakthrough victory for the gay-rights movement in the state where it got its start.

Religious institutions and nonprofit groups with religious affiliations will not be compelled to officiate at such ceremonies.
The New York state Assembly passed the amended bill earlier on Friday by a vote of 82-47.

The vote came after a veteran Republican senator earlier told The Associated Press he would vote yes, apparently giving the measure the support it needs to become law.

Honestly, I think this is great news. Now, hopefully this triggers related bills in all other states and we can move on to something worth discussing. It's the 21st century. We need to get past this point and catch up with the rest of the developed world on this one at least. Stop wasting our time, keeping people in love as second class citizens.

Your thoughts?

 

[WWWYKI777]

The way I see it they were all gonna be together live together and basically be married couples anyway , at least THIS way its official and they can also suffer the same tax penalties that straight couples do!

Plus when all the gays get married it could be a further economic boost with all the people buying catering , tuxes , dresses ,rings, limo rentals , etc

I don't see why they don't just say "The hell with it" and legalize gay marriage (AND WEED ) in all 50 states , cause practically everyone who wants to do those things runs around doing them anyway. If both were legal I think we'd see a notable boost in economy without a notable change in overall lifestyles of the people cause like I said people do these things legal or not.

 

[Slyfox696]

I think it's sad that gay marriage has to be "legalized" in the first place.

But, with that said, at least another state is willing to stand up for doing the right thing. I just wonder what justification those 29 who said no have. There is no justification for not allowing a gay person to marry, it's really as simple as that.

Good to see another state do the right thing.

 

[Constipated Badger Bottom]

I think it's sad that gay marriage has to be "legalized" in the first place.

I think that just sums it up perfectly, I don't understand how countires like the United States and us in the United Kingdom who make claims that there a "World Superpower" where there citizens are "Free People" but yet Gay Marriage is still not completly legal in either country it's a complete joke this is an issue that should of been resolved 40-50 years ago

 

[Nev]

If you're gonna legalize gay marriage, you might as well legalize polygamy as well.

By making gay marriage legal, I feel you're breaking the institution of what marriage was founded on, of which being a union between a consenting 1 man and 1 woman. Which is why I don't get why some are selling the "marriage should've been a right for every couple not limited to only monogamy and heterosexual couples since the beginning of civilization" nonsense. And I despise it when people say "if we don't legalize gay marriage, what's next? the government won't allow the rich to marry the power, or black to marry white again?", arguing a slippery slope that way is silly

But, yes, society evolves and changes as this legalization was obviously an eventuality. But still, since gay marriage supporters always defend their plea on all couples deserve marraige "equality", it just brings me back to polygamy. I can see "3-way couples" gain social and mainstream popularity in america (and I don't necessarily mean in a positive way) similar to homosexuality in the 80s/90s and we'll go through the same-old crap, protests, and legal battles. Since you're pretty much changing the institution of what marriage always has been since the beginning of time, and almost changing the definition of what marriage is, then why not have any type/form of couples have the right to marry too? The same way homosexual couples argue that hetereosexual couples discriminate against same-sex couples inability to procreate, what's to stop human-animal/ghost "couples" from stating "they" are being discriminated against for their inability to consent? Many gay marraige supporters always argue you can't "stop the right to love" so all other couples deserve the same under such logic, right?

Which is why this law scares the hell out of me. I feel this is going to change marriage into a complete joke. Even though I don't agree with it, I guess I can handle the idea of any two consenting adults marrying one another, but it honestly can not go any farther than that, even if you believe that any loving couple deserves marriage. We have to draw the line somewhere -- right? As a new yorker, I hope the "marriage equality" movement ends here under marriage being defined as a union between two consenting adults. However, probably not as this is going to be a never-ending movement until the definition of marriage is completely transformed (if it isn't already). Bah, but who cares. Why bother stressing over something that doesn't even concern you or effect your life in any way or form. Marriage is already a joke anyway, what in the hell am I trying to sell

 

[Uncle Phatso]

Good I'm very glad, I brought this up yesterday with a friend who dosen't support gay marriage. She said it was gross and unnatural. I followed that with so is taking a shit with the door open, but I'm sure you've done that before?

It's life people, if I wanted to love a man I hope my friends and associates would support me in that relationship. Love is love, and life is life. If I want to love a man to live my life, I as an american should be able to have the same rights as a straight couple. Because in the end, we are all americans!

I am not gay or bisexual, but from the age of 6-12, I was basically raised by a pair of lesibians. They were my babysitters, and beyond a few problems I had with one of them in later years. They were just like any other american family.

 

[SalvIsWin]

By making gay marriage legal, I feel you're breaking the institution of what marriage was founded on, of which being a union between a consenting 1 man and 1 woman. Which is why I don't get why some are selling the "marriage should've been a right for every couple not limited to only monogamy and heterosexual couples since the beginning of civilization" nonsense. And I despise it when people say "if we don't legalize gay marriage, what's next? the government won't allow the rich to marry the power, or black to marry white again?", arguing a slippery slope that way is silly

But, yes, society evolves and changes as this legalization was obviously an eventuality. But still, since gay marriage supporters always defend their plea on all couples deserve marraige "equality", it just brings me back to polygamy. I can see "3-way couples" gain social and mainstream popularity in america (and I don't necessarily mean in a positive way) similar to homosexuality in the 80s/90s and we'll go through the same-old crap, protests, and legal battles. Since you're pretty much changing the institution of what marriage always has been since the beginning of time, and almost changing the definition of what marriage is, then why not have any type/form of couples have the right to marry too? The same way homosexual couples argue that hetereosexual couples discriminate against same-sex couples inability to procreate, what's to stop human-animal/ghost "couples" from stating "they" are being discriminated against for their inability to consent? Many gay marraige supporters always argue you can't "stop the right to love" so all other couples deserve the same under such logic, right?

Which is why this law scares the hell out of me. I feel this is going to change marriage into a complete joke. Even though I don't agree with it, I guess I can handle the idea of any two consenting adults marrying one another, but it honestly can not go any farther than that, even if you believe that any loving couple deserves marriage. We have to draw the line somewhere -- right? As a new yorker, I hope the "marriage equality" movement ends here under marriage being defined as a union between two consenting adults. However, probably not as this is going to be a never-ending movement until the definition of marriage is completely transformed (if it isn't already). Bah, but who cares. Why bother stressing over something that doesn't even concern you or effect your life in any way or form. Marriage is already a joke anyway, what in the hell am I trying to sell

You talk about slippery slopes, and then go on to give an outrageous example. Person and ghost couples? Person and animal couples? Are you serious? You can't see the difference between a person and a fucking ghost ?

You're trying to argue way too many things at once. You're talking about heterosexual couples discriminating against homosexuals in regards to marriage because they cannot procreate, but I've yet to hear anyone make the statement that procreation is the key purpose of marriage. If that were the case then we wouldn't allow sterile people to marry. People don't like the idea of gay people marrying because they think it denigrates or cheapens marriage, but they can't give any fucking examples of why that is.

What's to stop a person marrying a ghost? Ghosts don't fucking exist. What's to stop a person marrying an animal? An animal can't consent. If ghosts did exist, or if animals were intelligent and could consent, then maybe those coupled would be married - who the fuck knows, but that would be a different situation entirely than the one that exists currently.

Marriage will be a complete joke according to you - why? Why is it a joke? You don't give a reason for anything you're saying. The only thing you've done is try to connect gay marriage to something everyone would agree is absurd, like a person marrying a ghost. The line is clearly drawn, and there are good reasons why human and non-human relationships cannot be given status. There are no good reasons why this particular human-human relationship shouldn't be given status.

 

[Slyfox696]

If you're gonna legalize gay marriage, you might as well legalize polygamy as well.

Except polygamy and same sex marriage are completely different concepts. But don't let facts get in the way of your being close-minded.

By making gay marriage legal, I feel you're breaking the institution of what marriage was founded on, of which being a union between a consenting 1 man and 1 woman.

You're right. Gay marriage is the ONLY thing which ruins the so-called sanctity of marriage. Divorces don't, drive-through marriages in Vegas don't...but gay marriage does.

You're being silly.

But, yes, society evolves and changes as this legalization was obviously an eventuality. But still, since gay marriage supporters always defend their plea on all couples deserve marraige "equality", it just brings me back to polygamy. I can see "3-way couples" gain social and mainstream popularity in america (and I don't necessarily mean in a positive way) similar to homosexuality in the 80s/90s and we'll go through the same-old crap, protests, and legal battles. Since you're pretty much changing the institution of what marriage always has been since the beginning of time, and almost changing the definition of what marriage is, then why not have any type/form of couples have the right to marry too?

Each type/form has their own set of circumstances.

For example, polygamy has historically shown to create subservient women, stripping them of their equality, making them little more than slaves to their husbands. That becomes a civil rights issue, as well a possible brainwashing/cult type mentality issue.

The same way homosexual couples argue that hetereosexual couples discriminate against same-sex couples inability to procreate, what's to stop human-animal/ghost "couples" from stating "they" are being discriminated against for their inability to consent? Many gay marraige supporters always argue you can't "stop the right to love" so all other couples deserve the same under such logic, right?

That makes absolutely zero sense.

If you want to marry your goat, then is ZERO chance for the goat to give informed consent to said marriage, or more appropriately, the sexual relation with the goat, since, as I have been informed, marriage legally assumes sexual conduct. Since a goat cannot give informed consent, then they cannot be a willing partner. And thus, any sexual relations between a person and their goat would be considered rape under the law. That's a silly argument, and one presented so often it makes me wonder why more people don't stop to think about how silly it really is.

It also makes you wonder about how sick minded the people who contest gay marriage really are. After all, how come the first thing they always think of after the legalization of gay marriage is sex with animals?

Which is why this law scares the hell out of me. I feel this is going to change marriage into a complete joke.

Oh, because the over 50% divorce rate in America, and the drive-thru marriages haven't already done that?

Even though I don't agree with it, I guess I can handle the idea of any two consenting adults marrying one another, but it honestly can not go any farther than that, even if you believe that any loving couple deserves marriage.

I'm confused. How much further can a loving couple go? Men can marry men or women and women can marry men or women...we've already discussed the concept of consent, so how much further can this possibly go?

 

[klunderbunker]

I can understand arguments against gay marriage from a religious perspective. I can understand a lot of the issues people have with it. However, the idea of "it breaks the sanctity of marriage" is absurd. Marriage hasn't meant a thing in years. Let's see.

How many end in divorce? My father has been married five times with each ending in divorce other than the current one which is about a year old. Yet clearly those marriages where he slept with women he wasn't married to was FAR better than a monogamous one between two men or two women right?

There are TV shows where the winner gets to marry someone. Gee, I can't imagine how that wouldn't be seen as absurd. I mean, it's not like marriage is much above a game show prize like a car or a vacation right?

Also let's look at Las Vegas. Marriage is so holy out there that you can drive through a parking lot, never get out of the car, pay $40 and have an Elvis impersonator marry you. Yet this is holy and pure right? Give me a break.

I can understand arguments against it, but the idea that the sanctity of marriage is being broken by this is absurd.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

What exactly does "The sanctity of marriage" even fucking mean? That some little old dude says some words and now you are allowed to fuck?

Fuck off, man.

Marriage is a man made institution and concept in general. There is no set guideline of it, or what constitutes it....therefore making it a silly thing to get all blown up over. The only union that matters in the grand scheme of things is love, and only love.

It hurts nothing and no one to allow gay marriage. Live your own fucking life.

 

[LSN80]

Marriage is just the state of being united to another human being in a consensual and contractual way as recognized by the state. Im not sure how the sanctity of marriage is disrupted when a man unites with another man, and a woman with another woman. Its not like a man and a woman uniting always results in a sanctious union. Reality shows, Las Vegas Shotgun Weddings, Infidelity, divorce, and spousal violence is testament to the bastardization of "sanctity."

I don't see the issue here, nor do I see how there's anything problematic about it. It makes the lives of likely thousands of people easier, including alllowing healthcare benefits for both partners, and protects them legally. Anyone who voted no likely did so for moral or religious reasons, which has no place here. This is a decision of rights, not an ethical or moral conundrum.

Marriage, in theory, is one of the basic building blocks of our neighborhoods and our nation. At best, it's a bond between two individuals who work to create a loving household and a social and economic partnership. Couples are encouraged to marry because the commitments they make to one another provide benefits not only to themselves, but also to their families and communities. Marriage requires thinking beyond one's own needs. It transforms two individuals into a union based on shared aspirations, and in doing so establishes a formal investment in the well-being of society. The fact that individuals who happen to be homosexual want to share in this vital social institution should be met with widespread acceptance.

I feel the legalization of same-sex marriage is a recognition of basic American principles. It represents the culmination of our nation's "commitment" to equal rights. To be frank, it's the last major civil-rights milestone yet to be surpassed in our two-century struggle to attain the goals we set for this nation at its formation. Bravo to New York for getting us one step closer to that goal. Its something that should have happened a long time ago.

 

[Moon Knight]

Except polygamy and same sex marriage are completely different concepts. But don't let facts get in the way of your being close-minded.

Equal protection under the law. They may have a valid legal argument to make marrying more than one person legal. One argument against gay marriage is how can you legalize one alternative but not the other? Prove there is no legal grounds for this and you will go far in changing some minds. This isn't a comment against same sex marriage, I am actually for it.

For example, polygamy has historically shown to create subservient women, stripping them of their equality, making them little more than slaves to their husbands. That becomes a civil rights issue, as well a possible brainwashing/cult type mentality issue.

Thats not true in every case. If I get into a relationship and marry 2 women, treat them as equals and we are in a fair and loving relationship, how is that wrong? Anyway, I have seen what you described in relationships between one man and one woman.

I don't see why they don't just say "The hell with it" and legalize gay marriage (AND WEED ) in all 50 states , cause practically everyone who wants to do those things runs around doing them anyway. If both were legal I think we'd see a notable boost in economy without a notable change in overall lifestyles of the people cause like I said people do these things legal or not.

That is not a good reason to make anything legal. People do lots of things that aren't legal, including you. Just because people do something illegal doesn't make a sound case for making it legal. People rob banks legal or not, people blow up buildings and kill people. Something being illegal has never stopped people before. Life isn't black and white, right nor wrong. You have to look at each problem on it's own and determine the best course of logical action. Same Sex Marriage should be legal because it is harmless and is just two people in love, while having sexual relations with your pet is harmful to you and the animal can't consent so it's equal to rape. People do both legal or not, but one is harmless and the other isn't.

We need to get past this point and catch up with the rest of the developed world on this one at least.

Unless something changed, only 7 nations in Europe made same sex marriage legal. Most just go along with civil unions. The USA is one of like 10 or 11 nations that have made same sex marriage legal on any level. (This exlcudes civil unions which are seen as the same in the UK for the most part)

 

[Minnesota Connection]

Not allowing homosexuals to get married is short-minded, homophobic and wrong.

Comparing polygamy and same-sex marriage is a ridiculous notion that I will not bother to touch on after this. Its that short-mindedness that I am talking about. Two people is what define a marriage. Two.

When the baby boomers are old and senile, when our society evolves a little bit more, gets a little more mature.. Then this debate will be over. It's more of an equal rights issue and years from now, we'll compare it to woman's suffrage, racial equality and criticizing each other and putting differences behind us.

Comparing homosexuality to bestiality or polygamy is pretty darn offensive stuff there. Even if you are unintentional, it is pretty offensive stuff. Just saying.

 

[Nev]

You talk about slippery slopes, and then go on to give an outrageous example. Person and ghost couples? Person and animal couples? Are you serious? You can't see the difference between a person and a fucking ghost ?

Maybe instead of, y'know, insulting my opinion try actually understanding what the fuck you are arguing against instead of making unsupported assumptions? Yeah, thanks. Ghost marriages is when someone wants to marry another who is dead. Mostly in cases where one was engaged and not yet married. Excluding instances of will/testaments ; if a person wants to do this the likely motivation driven by this is that he or she likely wants the legal rights, marital benefits, or the usual government paid-assistance from social insurance programs given out to females that are widows of deceased husbands (largely men who serve in the military as well). Or perhaps I'm unclear here, of which in that case I apologize, ghost marriage isn't really an official term as post-human (i believe) is but could be wrong

You're trying to argue way too many things at once. You're talking about heterosexual couples discriminating against homosexuals in regards to marriage because they cannot procreate, but I've yet to hear anyone make the statement that procreation is the key purpose of marriage. If that were the case then we wouldn't allow sterile people to marry. People don't like the idea of gay people marrying because they think it denigrates or cheapens marriage, but they can't give any fucking examples of why that is.

I'm just stating facts. Procreation/sanctity of marriage is often brought up in court battles. Most evident in the proposition 8 case and the legal suits that followed thereafter.

What's to stop a person marrying a ghost? Ghosts don't fucking exist. What's to stop a person marrying an animal? An animal can't consent. If ghosts did exist, or if animals were intelligent and could consent, then maybe those coupled would be married - who the fuck knows, but that would be a different situation entirely than the one that exists currently.

Marriage will be a complete joke according to you - why? Why is it a joke? You don't give a reason for anything you're saying. The only thing you've done is try to connect gay marriage to something everyone would agree is absurd, like a person marrying a ghost. The line is clearly drawn, and there are good reasons why human and non-human relationships cannot be given status. There are no good reasons why this particular human-human relationship shouldn't be given status.

Spewing out constutional facts and doctrines like "marriage is only consent", "marriage is only two people", "marriage is only with human beings" doesn't dispute anything about a future of marriage being completely unlimited, as obviously ANYTHING can be overruled if deemed unconstitutional. If someone stated "marriage has always been between a man and a woman" in response to another claiming people of the same-sex will one day want the right to marry, it obviously has no merit today here in NY, right? If, say, 3-way couples wanted the same rights as monogamous couples while using the same arguments that the preceeding homosexual couples did, I see under no way how the same testamony/reason that polygamy is unconstutional in lawsuits/legal battles is not or will never be an eventuality and people start stating, under no logic basis besides the evolution of society, that "marriage is a definition of any number of consenting adults". Which is why I believe you might as well change the complete and utter distinct view and definition of marriage transformationally, or keep the sanctity of marraige intact as a balance of both just creates more and more stress, protests and lawsuits forever. I don't believe divorce breaks the sanctity of marriage, as its always been legal in America since its foundation. Hell, even under some religious circumstances (judeo-christian views, for instance) divorce is acceptable. Its divorce rates that affect the general decline of the perception of what sanctity of what marriage is, but not necessarily "breaking" it -- but rather just, again, watering it down

 

[DethMetal]

Good. Why should two homosexuals be denied the right to be married? I think that's where religion comes into play, but that's a different story. To deny someone the right to be with/marry the same sex is homophobic, idiotic, and just wrong. What gives you the right to deny two people happiness because you don't approve? Who the hell are you? I think banning it was always bullshit to begin with. Good for New York. Fight discrimination!

 

[Nev]

Except polygamy and same sex marriage are completely different concepts. But don't let facts get in the way of your being close-minded.

"Different concepts" doesn't exactly dispute them still being able to consent, thus being able to marry regardless of circumstances

You're right. Gay marriage is the ONLY thing which ruins the so-called sanctity of marriage. Divorces don't, drive-through marriages in Vegas don't...but gay marriage does.

You're being silly.

Pretty much contradicting myself when I worry about the sanctity of marriage being broken while also calling marriage a joke. I wouldn't say divorce by itself ruins the sanctity of marriage. It is to my understanding divorce has been a legal process in America since forever. Divorce was initially largely acceptable when your spouse cheats on you or makes you miserable. Obviously divorce has become completely watered down to make marriage seem like dating at this point as evidenced by divorce rates, but divorce in itself or how fast people decide to marry doesn't "break" the sanctity of marriage, it just waters it down.

Each type/form has their own set of circumstances.

For example, polygamy has historically shown to create subservient women, stripping them of their equality, making them little more than slaves to their husbands. That becomes a civil rights issue, as well a possible brainwashing/cult type mentality issue.

What it looks like you are describing is largely religious polygamy if outright abuse of a woman is allowed or morally accepeted in polygamy, like for instance by some islamic couples today. If not, then I don't see your point there. If females are abused, they can go through the same legal process as a woman in a monogamous relationship would. Also, not all couples would involve just a woman and multiple men obviously. Such couples can obviously involve two women and a man, of which just like lesbianism in comparison to man-to-man, a couple like that would probably be more acceptable and "cool" (ex. pimps) to people thanks to mainstream media and the double standards in today's society. "Slaves to their husbands"? Hm, well the way in which women are portrayed in pornography is similar to what you are describing. Many women and civil rights/social justice advocate groups have been outspoken against the way females are made out to be in some forms of porn. Yet, its never been a big deal enough for the porn industry to be legally accused of discrimination against women (well, yet i guess). It's largely a choice of those females that allow themselves to be portrayed in such a manner. I think its comparable to polygamy, if a woman wants to be a relationship with two men it's her damn choice if she feels comfortable.

I'm not sure if I follow where exactly your views on polygamy are, but telling by that statement I'm guessing you are against those couples having the right to marry, or you don't see it even being as strong of an issue as gay marriage is currently. Our society changes and evolves, I can really see polygamy gaining credence. Some people can throw the logic of wanting to love more than one person in a relationship without it being considered "cheating", it can involve women marrying multiple men too. Economy's also getting worse so I'm going to assume here the benefits from a non-monogamous marriage has to be attractive. Again, society evolves and people do change over time. Don't get me wrong, I don't support this but I'm just making the case of what the future of marriage can be when you argue "marriage is love between a couple. goverment cant stop love", "x couple is not better than y couple because x can do such and such that y can not" as I commonly hear this often in debates.

I don't believe what you're saying is a good enough point for not allowing those couples the right to marry. I remember a few years back people would make it an issue that children are being made out to be a "social experiment" with homosexual couples but it evidently wasn't enough to start some kind of suit to try and outlaw homosexual couples from adopting kids. I think this legalization can absolutely open the door to polygamy under the same arguments and circumstances, under law. Which preludes to what I mentioned before by just completely transforming the definition of marriage for it being unlimited for all types and forms of couples to enjoy, or keep the sanctity of marriage intact although I doubt it, as I am a realist and can clearly see gay marriage is an eventuality and will be legal in neraly every U.S. state excluding the ultra-conservative districts. A combination of "both" will lead to century-long disputes and legal battles like I mentioned earlier if it makes more sense now.

That makes absolutely zero sense.

If you want to marry your goat, then is ZERO chance for the goat to give informed consent to said marriage, or more appropriately, the sexual relation with the goat, since, as I have been informed, marriage legally assumes sexual conduct. Since a goat cannot give informed consent, then they cannot be a willing partner. And thus, any sexual relations between a person and their goat would be considered rape under the law. That's a silly argument, and one presented so often it makes me wonder why more people don't stop to think about how silly it really is.

It also makes you wonder about how sick minded the people who contest gay marriage really are. After all, how come the first thing they always think of after the legalization of gay marriage is sex with animals?

Haha! I can think of other ways how such couples can argue otherwise. Loving animals doesn't involve consent but its not completely unrealistic for such "couples" to at least want the right to marry. Loving animals is unofficially a sexual orientation in some cases anyway and like I said, people change. Wasn't some instances of homosexuality considered sodomy not too long ago? Once it was figured out that homosexuals are normal people that can live a normal lives it didn't take too long to overrule that so its not like people's minds never changed before in regards to sexual morality. The "Speciesism" argument can be thrown out there as well in courts, citing against discrimination. Culture's becoming more and more sexualized every few years. Crime rates from pedophilia continues to increase every year. Not saying loving animals will be accepeted or anything (a joke to many instead) but under the logic that gay marriage was supported by in legal battles (sanctity of marriage argument for traditional marriage is discrimination against homosexual's inability to procreate, marriage is loving one another, government can't control or define marriage, etc.) it's at least understandable. I've already talked about ghost/posthumous marriages as well.

Oh, because the over 50% divorce rate in America, and the drive-thru marriages haven't already done that?

Except divorce doesn't but rather divorce rates only waters it down and ruins the value of marriage, but doesn't break or ruin the sanctity of marriage as its always been legal in America since the beginning of its time and even acceptable in religious doctrines such as christianity and judaism.

How much further can a loving couple go?

Re-wording that as how possibly a loving couple can go, I think we've covered that just about enough right above

 

[Slyfox696]

Equal protection under the law. They may have a valid legal argument to make marrying more than one person legal. One argument against gay marriage is how can you legalize one alternative but not the other? Prove there is no legal grounds for this and you will go far in changing some minds. This isn't a comment against same sex marriage, I am actually for it.

And I'm not actually making a case against polygamy. What I'm saying is gay marriage and polygamy are not the same thing, and that polygamy has been outlawed for reasons other than Christian religion.

There are legitimate reasons for outlawing polygamy, regardless of whether you agree with them or not, and regardless of an opinion's belief of whether or not polygamy should be legal or not. In the case of homosexual marriage, there is ZERO reason to prohibit homosexuals from being marriage, unless it is based around religion, which would be a violation of the 1st Amendment.

"Different concepts" doesn't exactly dispute them still being able to consent, thus being able to marry regardless of circumstances

But it does note that you cannot say if one is legal, another should be. That would be akin to saying the man who steals bread to feed his family should be executed just the same as the man who murdered 3 children because they both broke the law.

An extreme example, I grant you, but it illustrates the point you cannot say one should be allowed because another is.

I wouldn't say divorce by itself ruins the sanctity of marriage.

It doesn't? Perhaps you're not familiar with the terms "till death do us part" which are a pretty standard clause in any marriage contract. By invoking the "till death do us part" clause, you are swearing to God your love, devotion and commitment to your partner. Divorce is breaking your vow to God to remain true to your partner.

It very much ruins the sanctity of marriage, or at the very least, every bit as much so as anyone could ever claim homosexual marriage does.

It is to my understanding divorce has been a legal process in America since forever.

Whoa whoa whoa...

Now all of a sudden we're going to talk about the legal process? What the fuck? On one hand, you're talking about the sanctity of marriage, but when it's inconvenient to hold marriage holy, then suddenly you switch it being a strictly legal process?

In that case, you have no leg to stand on. Because in legal terms, there is ZERO excuse for a class of citizen to be discriminated against for any reason.

Divorce was initially largely acceptable when your spouse cheats on you or makes you miserable. Obviously divorce has become completely watered down to make marriage seem like dating at this point as evidenced by divorce rates, but divorce in itself or how fast people decide to marry doesn't "break" the sanctity of marriage, it just waters it down.

You're right. Breaking your solemn vow, which you made in God's house, to the Lord Almighty himself doesn't break the holiness of a marriage.

What it looks like you are describing is largely religious polygamy if outright abuse of a woman is allowed or morally accepeted in polygamy, like for instance by some islamic couples today.

It's part of it.

Like I said, I'm not standing here claiming polygamy should be legal or illegal. That's not the point of this thread. What I'm standing here saying is gay marriage and polygamy are two completely separate issues, and one does not automatically follow another.

I'm not sure if I follow where exactly your views on polygamy are

Because I have not shared them with you. Anything you attribute to me is pure conjecture on your part.

but telling by that statement I'm guessing you are against those couples having the right to marry, or you don't see it even being as strong of an issue as gay marriage is currently.

I believe I made it quite clear, even before this post. My position is that gay marriage and polygamy are two separate issues, and one does not determine another.

Haha! I can think of other ways how such couples can argue otherwise. Loving animals doesn't involve consent

And at which point, you no longer have a point trying to invoke animal marriages.

Any legal contract, which marriage is, must consist of two parties understanding the terms of the contract and consenting to it. If you don't have two parties to consent, then you do not have a contract. This part of the debate is clearly over.

Wasn't some instances of homosexuality considered sodomy not too long ago?

But, again, you're talking about the difference between two consenting adults, and an animal which cannot give consent. Completely different situations.

I've already talked about ghost/posthumous marriages as well.

Did you address how the deceased can give consent to the legal contract of marriage at the time of the marriage? If not, then you don't have a point.

Except divorce doesn't

Oh, I think it's pretty clear it does.

but rather divorce rates only waters it down and ruins the value of marriage, but doesn't break or ruin the sanctity of marriage as its always been legal in America since the beginning of its time

Do you understand what "sanctity" means? Sanctity and morality are not the same thing.

 

[Nev]

It doesn't? Perhaps you're not familiar with the terms "till death do us part" which are a pretty standard clause in any marriage contract. By invoking the "till death do us part" clause, you are swearing to God your love, devotion and commitment to your partner. Divorce is breaking your vow to God to remain true to your partner.

It very much ruins the sanctity of marriage, or at the very least, every bit as much so as anyone could ever claim homosexual marriage does.

Divorce, by itself doesn't ruin the sanctity of marriage. The notion that for example the Bible outlaws divorce under no justification of circumstance is incorrect. This is something I used to believe in as well before I realized and came to terms it was untrue. I'm not going to speak in religious terms since it'll likely sound like another language to you I guess, but divorce is deemed okay in the Bible under the circumstance of your spouse having an adulterous relationship or being unfaithful. With the exception of the past 40 or so years, divorce has always been granted if it was deemed your spouse was cheating on you, making you miserable, abuse, or being "unfaithful" religiously-speaking. It wasnt until recently these past few decades divorce has been acceptable under any circumstance or situation as obviously we've seen cases of celebrities getting divorces within days. Divorce being more easily granted doesn't break the sanctity of marriage because divorce in itself doesn't at all, what that particularly does is water down and subsequently ruin the public perception and value of long-term marriages. If divorce was always breaking the sanctity of what marriage is, I doubt it would be widely accepted for centuries and centuries under previous socially conservative and religious societies of the western world long before the american constiution came into fruition.

Whoa whoa whoa...

Now all of a sudden we're going to talk about the legal process? What the fuck? On one hand, you're talking about the sanctity of marriage, but when it's inconvenient to hold marriage holy, then suddenly you switch it being a strictly legal process?

In that case, you have no leg to stand on. Because in legal terms, there is ZERO excuse for a class of citizen to be discriminated against for any reason.

Thanks for sort of proving my point in a way. Now that the sanctity of marriage is ruined it opens the door for other couples to fight for the right to marry under the same physical foundation that homosexual couples did. Polygamy is love, marriage is love, let people live their lives, right? Monogamous couples aren't superior to couples who practice polygamy, right? Breaking the sanctity of marriage opens the door to different things. I'm not going to even explain again why polygamy makes sense as a potential future plea -- its up there in print in my other post, and, telling by the rest of your post you largely skimmed through the points I was making understandably so

It's part of it.

Fabulous way of not even trying to defend the points you were making about polygamy.

Because I have not shared them with you. Anything you attribute to me is pure conjecture on your part.

I believe I made it quite clear, even before this post. My position is that gay marriage and polygamy are two separate issues, and one does not determine another.

Mhm. So I'm just supposed to ignore what you were saying about polygamy because I also have to make the assumption what you said was not supposed to back up your opinion about polygamy remaining outlawed regardless of the foundation by which same-sex marriage was legalized under in NY? You clearly made your claim about the the potential (completely subjective, mind you) dangers of polygamy. I make counter points against your claims and you just ignore it and repeat your stance, again. Yeah, I'm just supposed to assume you randomly made these points for no reason.

And at which point, you no longer have a point trying to invoke animal marriages.

Did you address how the deceased can give consent to the legal contract of marriage at the time of the marriage? If not, then you don't have a point.

Any legal contract, which marriage is, must consist of two parties understanding the terms of the contract and consenting to it. If you don't have two parties to consent, then you do not have a contract. This part of the debate is clearly over.

People change, society change, opinions change. Homosexuality was once considered sodomy like beastiality is considered today. Homosexuality was once considered an immoral choice and a lifestyle, just like polygamy is considered today, instead of just simply love that deserve the same rights as any other couple. Stating constutional facts doesnt exactly prove or disprove why polygamy can't be legal. If that's the case, I doubt gay marraige would be legal here in NY right now. Gay marriage being brought up in the first place founded more on societal evolution, if anything, and society has clearly shown it changes over the time. Now repeatedly telling these couples "marriage only consists of a union of two parties that is a man and a woman" would be considered discrimination instead of a simple fact like it was in the past, mostly of which (discrimination) is founded and supported behind a principle basis of the evolution of society. It can absolutely be considered discrimination by some when you decline the right to marry for 3-way couples because marriage "has to be limited" to two parties under the law. People change, society change. Under the same physical foundation gay marriage was founded on, it opens the door for other types of marriages as well. Which goes back all the way to my initial argument, you might as well transform the definition of marriage to being unlimited for all sorts of couples too.

Fucking forum as well, wish they'd stop logging me off every 15 minutes. Second time I've had to re-write this (sigh)

 

[Slyfox696]

Divorce, by itself doesn't ruin the sanctity of marriage. The notion that for example the Bible outlaws divorce under no justification of circumstance is incorrect. This is something I used to believe in as well before I realized and came to terms it was untrue. I'm not going to speak in religious terms since it'll likely sound like another language to you I guess, but divorce is deemed okay in the Bible under the circumstance of your spouse having an adulterous relationship or being unfaithful. With the exception of the past 40 or so years, divorce has always been granted if it was deemed your spouse was cheating on you, making you miserable, abuse, or being "unfaithful" religiously-speaking. It wasnt until recently these past few decades divorce has been acceptable under any circumstance or situation as obviously we've seen cases of celebrities getting divorces within days. Divorce being more easily granted doesn't break the sanctity of marriage because divorce in itself doesn't at all, what that particularly does is water down and subsequently ruin the public perception and value of long-term marriages. If divorce was always breaking the sanctity of what marriage is, I doubt it would be widely accepted for centuries and centuries under previous socially conservative and religious societies of the western world long before the american constiution came into fruition.



Thanks for sort of proving my point in a way. Now that the sanctity of marriage is ruined it opens the door for other couples to fight for the right to marry under the same physical foundation that homosexual couples did. Polygamy is love, marriage is love, let people live their lives, right? Monogamous couples aren't superior to couples who practice polygamy, right? Breaking the sanctity of marriage opens the door to different things. I'm not going to even explain again why polygamy makes sense as a potential future plea -- its up there in print in my other post, and, telling by the rest of your post you largely skimmed through the points I was making understandably so



Fabulous way of not even trying to defend the points you were making about polygamy.



Mhm. So I'm just supposed to ignore what you were saying about polygamy because I also have to make the assumption what you said was not supposed to back up your opinion about polygamy remaining outlawed regardless of the foundation by which same-sex marriage was legalized under in NY? You clearly made your claim about the the potential (completely subjective, mind you) dangers of polygamy. I make counter points against your claims and you just ignore it and repeat your stance, again. Yeah, I'm just supposed to assume you randomly made these points for no reason.



People change, society change, opinions change. Homosexuality was once considered sodomy like beastiality is considered today. Homosexuality was once considered an immoral choice and a lifestyle, just like polygamy is considered today, instead of just simply love that deserve the same rights as any other couple. Stating constutional facts doesnt exactly prove or disprove why polygamy can't be legal. If that's the case, I doubt gay marraige would be legal here in NY right now. Gay marriage being brought up in the first place founded more on societal evolution, if anything, and society has clearly shown it changes over the time. Now repeatedly telling these couples "marriage only consists of a union of two parties that is a man and a woman" would be considered discrimination instead of a simple fact like it was in the past, mostly of which (discrimination) is founded and supported behind a principle basis of the evolution of society. It can absolutely be considered discrimination by some when you decline the right to marry for 3-way couples because marriage "has to be limited" to two parties under the law. People change, society change. Under the same physical foundation gay marriage was founded on, it opens the door for other types of marriages as well. Which goes back all the way to my initial argument, you might as well transform the definition of marriage to being unlimited for all sorts of couples too.

Fucking forum as well, wish they'd stop logging me off every 15 minutes. Second time I've had to re-write this (sigh)

I've read your post twice now, and each time I come back to the same thought.

"What the fuck are you talking about?"

This isn't a thread about polygamy, which is why I'm not discussing polygamy. Do you not understand this is a thread about gay marriage? This is really simple, so let me try and break it down for you, so we can get back to gay marriage:

1) You said:

divorce is deemed okay in the Bible under the circumstance of your spouse having an adulterous relationship or being unfaithful.

And you also said:

It wasnt until recently these past few decades divorce has been acceptable under any circumstance or situation as obviously we've seen cases of celebrities getting divorces within days.

Now, since you have agreed divorces are being granted for reasons other than adulterous relationships, then you must also agree the Bible does not give pardon to these divorces, which thus ruins the sanctity of marriage. These are you own words, mind you. Thus, the sanctity of marriage is ruined. By your own words. Move on.

2) The Bible has absolutely ZERO to do with legal marriages. Under the first Amendment, which prohibits government from the establishment of religion, the whole "sanctity of marriage" has absolutely no fucking weight in this discussion. I only brought it up to point out how fucking stupid it is to try and claim same sex marriages is what ruins the sanctity of marriage, when you have drive-thru weddings and divorces in only days for reasons other than that which you claim is in the Bible. Move on.

3) I have not ONCE made a stand on polygamy in this thread, as that is a completely different issue. The ONLY thing I've said in this thread about polygamy is that you cannot grant polygamy for the same reason you grant same sex marriages, because each issue is completely different. Why you can't understand such a simple concept is beyond me. Move on.

4) Good fucking God, this thread is not about polygamy. Your entire last post could theoretically be Infracted for spam, as you're no longer even talking about same sex marriages, you're talking about polygamy. If you want to create a thread to advocate polygamy, go ahead. I might post in it, or I might not. Depends if the mood strikes me.

But this thread...this thread is about same sex marriages. And all I did is prove how incredibly wrong you are to oppose same sex marriages on the grounds of possible legalization of polygamy, due to the fact they are two entirely separate issues. Move on.




Now, if you wish to talk about polygamy, start a thread. If you wish to talk about same sex marriages, do it here. But no matter what you do, take a little time to comprehend that which I'm saying, because the last thing I want to do is read another dumb-fuck post of yours and think to myself, "what the fuck are you talking about?".

 

[Calderownz]

If you're gonna legalize gay marriage, you might as well legalize polygamy as well.

Sure. Why would that matter to me? What does that have to do with ANYTHING in my life?

The fact of the matter is that it really doesn't change anything. Marriage is only respectable on a case-by-case basis. I mean, people marry for money. People marry after being forced to by family. People marry to get ahead in life. People marry to stay in this country legally. None of this affects you in ANY way, shape or form.

But, all of a sudden, gay marriage is the cancer that will ruin marriage's sanctity.

By making gay marriage legal, I feel you're breaking the institution of what marriage was founded on, of which being a union between a consenting 1 man and 1 woman. Which is why I don't get why some are selling the "marriage should've been a right for every couple not limited to only monogamy and heterosexual couples since the beginning of civilization" nonsense.

You're talking about two different things. You're talking about religion and government. Religion can't change. Laws can. Churches aren't forced to marry a gay couple. The government is decided by the people or by the people that THE PEOPLE elect. Two different things.

And I despise it when people say "if we don't legalize gay marriage, what's next? the government won't allow the rich to marry the power, or black to marry white again?", arguing a slippery slope that way is silly

Actually, it's not the same thing, but it isn't silly. The government should have very little to do with whom you marry.

But, yes, society evolves and changes as this legalization was obviously an eventuality. But still, since gay marriage supporters always defend their plea on all couples deserve marraige "equality", it just brings me back to polygamy. I can see "3-way couples" gain social and mainstream popularity in america (and I don't necessarily mean in a positive way) similar to homosexuality in the 80s/90s and we'll go through the same-old crap, protests, and legal battles. Since you're pretty much changing the institution of what marriage always has been since the beginning of time, and almost changing the definition of what marriage is, then why not have any type/form of couples have the right to marry too?

Once again, how does this matter? Why do you care who marries whom? Your marriage isn't validated by what other people do. Either your marriage is shit or it's not. The rest of the couples could all be perfect couples and if your marriage is a sham or horrible, it will continue to be. If you're in a great marriage and everyone else is in shams, then you're still in a great relationship.

Why would you be worried about other people and their relationships. I've been in a few myself. I worry about my own and fuck everyone else. I can't worry about them.

The same way homosexual couples argue that hetereosexual couples discriminate against same-sex couples inability to procreate, what's to stop human-animal/ghost "couples" from stating "they" are being discriminated against for their inability to consent? Many gay marraige supporters always argue you can't "stop the right to love" so all other couples deserve the same under such logic, right?

Fine. I don't care. It'd still be illegal to fuck dogs, and that is illegal because it isn't a victimless situation. We'd have no way of knowing if the dog wanted it, for example. However, if I SOMEHOW knew the dog was into it, I wouldn't give two shits about it. It has nothing to do with me. I don't understand why people care about other people's relationships. I makes absolutely no sense.

Your relationship isn't in any way affected unless you choose to be bothered by this. If you choose to be offended by this.

You take offense, it isn't given.

Which is why this law scares the hell out of me. I feel this is going to change marriage into a complete joke.[/qoute]

Lol. Marriage is already a joke. People get married on overrated game shows on television. Yet, I doubt you'd have such a post about that. You might make mention of it, but I doubt you'd want to stop it from being legal. Especially in some major way. Yet, this law actually scares you.

A law that permits two loving adults from being happy. It's ridiculous. If anything, gay people would help strengthen marriage. Because gay couples have been tested and through a lot with each other. When they get married, it'd make sense for them to stick it out to the end.

Even though I don't agree with it, I guess I can handle the idea of any two consenting adults marrying one another, but it honestly can not go any farther than that, even if you believe that any loving couple deserves marriage. We have to draw the line somewhere -- right? As a new yorker, I hope the "marriage equality" movement ends here under marriage being defined as a union between two consenting adults. However, probably not as this is going to be a never-ending movement until the definition of marriage is completely transformed (if it isn't already). Bah, but who cares. Why bother stressing over something that doesn't even concern you or effect your life in any way or form. Marriage is already a joke anyway, what in the hell am I trying to sell

No one is fighting for the right to marry dogs. And if they are, they aren't being taken seriously. No one is marrying ghosts. Relax.

 

[Blue Chipper]

Denying gay people the right to marriage goes against the creed of our country - the belief that every American should have equal rights. Your sexual orientation shouldn't limit your freedoms/capabilities in a country that's founded upon treating people equally. It's contradictory, morally wrong, and a form of discrimination.

Just like ethnicity, nationality, etc. shouldn't influence a person's ability to achieve fulfillment and happiness.

 

[TheNewStyle]

Wasn't it already legal? Well, good thing it has been legalized finally. I don't condone homosexuality in any way but I support their right to marry who they want and do whatever they want in their personal life.

I don't understand arguments against it either. As a person who's a believer, I don't have anything against homosexuals as individuals even if I don't agree with their ways and I don't see why anyone else should have a problem with them either. Unless they rape you or stalk you, I don't understand your problem with homosexuals. But maybe I take marriage less seriously since that's something I never intend to participate in under any circumstance in my life.

 

[Nev]

I've read your post twice now, and each time I come back to the same thought.

"What the fuck are you talking about?"

- Arguing that gay marriage ruined the sanctity of marriage
- Now that the sanctity of marriage is broken, it should absolutely open the door for other couples getting their equal rights under the law.

You don't have to respond to this. I know what you're saying, the so-called sanctity of marriage has always' been broken forever because of divorce. Polygamy will never be legalized because of simply same-sex marriage. I've explained my reasons why that could be potentially untrue but you don't really care because you feel that's going out of subject and not in the context of what this thread should be about. Fair enough, just wish you didn't bother mentioning the cons of polygamy in the first place

Now, since you have agreed divorces are being granted for reasons other than adulterous relationships, then you must also agree the Bible does not give pardon to these divorces, which thus ruins the sanctity of marriage. These are you own words, mind you.

Not exactly man. I've also said divorce being more easily granted doesn't ruin any sanctity because divorce in itself doesn't break the sanctity of marriage (as, like i have also said, has been widely accepeted in social conservative and religious societies for centuries without any question or backlash). Divorce being more accessible waters down the value of the sanctity of marriage and ruins the public perception of marriage. It doesn't actually break what the sanctity of what marriage is because divorce doesn't. I understand you disagree with this and you're just going to repeat yourself that divorce does, but I wish you can just explain to me why I'm incorrect about that as you say.

3) I have not ONCE made a stand on polygamy in this thread, as that is a completely different issue. The ONLY thing I've said in this thread about polygamy is that you cannot grant polygamy for the same reason you grant same sex marriages, because each issue is completely different. Why you can't understand such a simple concept is beyond me. Move on.

I understand your opinion, I just think its incorrect. The physical foundation by which gay marriage was legalized can absolutely legalize polygamy. Don't know why you don't want to understand it or at least acknowledge my argument in some way or fashion instead of disregarding it. But, I understand, you feel that's going out of topic.

4) Good fucking God, this thread is not about polygamy. Your entire last post could theoretically be Infracted for spam, as you're no longer even talking about same sex marriages, you're talking about polygamy. If you want to create a thread to advocate polygamy, go ahead. I might post in it, or I might not. Depends if the mood strikes me.

I'm not "advocating" polygamy. I've clearly stated multiple times already that under the same basis and physical foundation that homosexuality's public perception was eventually deemed acceptable by society and subsequently legalized in marriage, is the same way polygamy can absolutely be legalized. You made your opinion known on print why that is untrue, you stated a couple of cons about polygamy being a civil rights issue, I make some counter points, but again you feel you don't want to bother any further because that's a separate discussion. Fair enough.

But this thread...this thread is about same sex marriages. And all I did is prove how incredibly wrong you are to oppose same sex marriages on the grounds of possible legalization of polygamy, due to the fact they are two entirely separate issues. Move on.

Maybe I'll make a discussion about the sanctity of marriage being broken under the same sex marriage legislation in NY (Because it wasn't already broken, as I explained), it should open the door for other couples granted equal rights under the same physical foundation same-sex couples were in legal battles. Has completely nothing to do with a thread about same-sex marriage being legalized in NY, makes... some sense. Although I do disagree -- you're the mod and you make the rules. Maybe I'll do so in the near future

 

[Slyfox696]

- Arguing that gay marriage ruined the sanctity of marriage
- Now that the sanctity of marriage is broken, it should absolutely open the door for other couples getting their equal rights under the law.'

The problem with this though is what I said in my last post:

The Bible has absolutely ZERO to do with legal marriages. Under the first Amendment, which prohibits government from the establishment of religion, the whole "sanctity of marriage" has absolutely no fucking weight in this discussion.

As long as you agree I am correct about this, then you agree that sanctity never had any part of any reason to keep people from marrying.

The reasons polygamy is outlawed is different than the reasons same sex marriages were outlawed. That is what I am trying to get through to you.

Fair enough, just wish you didn't bother mentioning the cons of polygamy in the first place

It was important to illustrate the difference between polygamy, which has real legal/civil rights issues to hurdle to become allowed, and same sex marriage, whose only hurdle was of a religious nature.

Not exactly man. I've also said divorce being more easily granted doesn't ruin any sanctity because divorce in itself doesn't break the sanctity of marriage (as, like i have also said, has been widely accepeted in social conservative and religious societies for centuries without any question or backlash).

But it doesn't matter what YOU say, it matters how you define "sanctity" of marriage. The fact of the matter is the wedding vows you take, promising to God to take your partner until death do you part, is a sacred promise to God to never be divorced. When you divorce, you are breaking that promise.

You then claim divorce has been religiously allowable in situations of adultery. I'm taking you at your word for that, but it doesn't matter because people are getting divorced for reasons other than adultery, which means the sanctity of the institution itself is already broken. When you make a vow to God, and then break it, you have ruined the sanctity of the marriage.

All of which is to say, it doesn't even matter whether the sanctity of the institution of marriage is intact or not, as the concept is born of religiousness, which has zero part in our legal system under the First Amendment.

but I wish you can just explain to me why I'm incorrect about that as you say.

I have. Numerous times. I can repeat myself again, if you'd like.

1) The definition of sanctity - Something considered holy and/or sacred

2) Sanctity of marriage - Taking a vow before God to commit to your partner until death do you part.

3) Divorce (of any kind not related to adultery) breaks the vow of marriage, with no "grace" being given in the Bible.

4) Divorce, then, breaks the sanctity of marriage, as it violates the holy vow you made to God.

I really don't know how to make it any clearer than that. You keep mentioning that divorce is allowed, but the ONLY reason you've given for allowing a divorce is adultery. So every other reason for divorce, not related to adultery, breaks the sanctity of marriage as the Bible does not excuse any divorce not related to adultery, by your own words.

That's as clear as I can make it.

I understand your opinion, I just think its incorrect. The physical foundation by which gay marriage was legalized can absolutely legalize polygamy. Don't know why you don't want to understand it or at least acknowledge my argument in some way or fashion instead of disregarding it. But, I understand, you feel that's going out of topic.

You cannot be this dumb. No fucking way you can be this dumb.

I don't acknowledge your argument because it is completely bullshit. There is not a SINGLE legal issue to support polygamy and homosexuality as being the same. The ONLY way they can be classified together is unofficially as an alternative to heterosexual marriage, and that classification holds no legal basis.

I have given you the reasons why polygamy is outlawed. Whether or not you agree with it being true, there's a legitimate cause for concern which has led to the outlawing of polygamy.

Homosexual marriage and polygamy have absolutely NOTHING to do with one another. To give a parallel example, you're basically arguing that because caffeine is legal, we should allow cocaine to be legal. Do you see how silly that argument is, regardless of whether you believe cocaine should be legalized?

you stated a couple of cons about polygamy being a civil rights issue, I make some counter points, but again you feel you don't want to bother any further because that's a separate discussion. Fair enough.

Fine. Go make another thread about polygamy if you want it legalized. As long as YOU are willing to understand that the legalization of homosexual marriage and the legalization of polygamy are two separate issues, and one does not determine the second, we have no problem.

At which point, not a single person can have any reasonable argument against same sex marriage. Which was the point all along.

 

[48.7 is Approximately 49 Times Better Than You]

I'm a Christian, but I would cast my vote to legalize gay marriage if the issue came to a vote in Oregon. The only "reasonable" argument against gay marriage is one regarding religion, not because it "grosses you out" or it "violates the sanctity of marriage". The First Amendment to the Constitution prohibits Congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion. Thus, prohibiting gay marriage would either be done for religious reasons (illegal) or because of outright bigotry (also illegal). Gay couples marrying doesn't affect my life, or yours, in any way. If they want to live that lifestyle, they are going to. I won't condone it or promote it, but I certainly won't look down my nose at them or condemn them. Homosexuals are people whom I will always treat with the same respect and kindness as I would any straight person. Yes, I believe that homosexuality is a choice, that it is sinful in God's eyes, but it is not a greater sin than any of my vices or anyone else's nor does it change the fact that they are loved by God just as much as you or I.