NY Becomes Sixth State To Approve Same-sex Marriage

[MikePizzoff]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/06/25/new.york.gay.marriage/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Awesome. Only 44 states to go.

Still waiting for all of my homophobic acquaintances to post hateful things on Facebook about this; I'm sure some of the meatheads from high school will call me a "fag" for approving of it.

[JDFP]

Hey, legal marriage by the state is just a piece of paper with no merit anyway except tax purposes, so why not?

I have no problem with state sanctioned marriage as long as the state keeps their hands out of the church completely on this matter. "The separation of church and state" is intended to protect religious institutions from the infringement of the state.

Call me "homophobe" or whatever you want with not being as accepting of a mockery of marriage as you, but I just find it laughable. I don't have anything in the world against whatever people do in their bedroom but I think it should be kept there and private. I'll be damned before I ever refer to two women as "wives" or two men as "husbands".

j.p.

[Publius]

Hey, legal marriage by the state is just a piece of paper with no merit anyway except tax purposes, so why not?


Heck, why deny that right to anyone - just tax everyone at "married" rates. :P

[Rancid Carcass]

I'll be damned before I ever refer to two women as "wives" or two men as "husbands".

You just have... :p :elol:

[Danny]

shame it took so long to get it through though. Though no doubt right wing homophobes will caterwaul that it "violates the sanctity of marriage", because as everyone knows, in a perfect right wing society two same sex people who want to stand before whatever they believe in to make a commitment is sick, but a 'straight' couple marrying for benefit fraud, tax evasion or getting around immigration laws is just dandy as long as they dont share the same number of chromosomes :rolleyes:

[MoonSylver]

Everyone should have the same right to be as equally miserable under the law. :dead:

[SymphonicX]

It amazes me that there are still 44 states to go. What must the gay communities of these remaining 44 states feel like?
Outlawed like criminals?
It's pretty disgusting that 80% of America still needs to catch up, that 80% of the ruling bodies still feel that addressing this issue would harm their re-election capacity, or whatever. It really saddens me.

[Publius]

Though no doubt right wing homophobes will caterwaul that it "violates the sanctity of marriage", because as everyone knows, in a perfect right wing society two same sex people who want to stand before whatever they believe in to make a commitment is sick, but a 'straight' couple marrying for benefit fraud, tax evasion or getting around immigration laws is just dandy as long as they dont share the same number of chromosomes :rolleyes:

Which conservatives, exactly, advocate repealing the laws against marriage fraud to evade taxes or obtain immigration status or welfare benefits? I would like to know who it is that thinks those actions are just dandy, because that certainly seems hypocritical.

[SymphonicX]

Hey, legal marriage by the state is just a piece of paper with no merit anyway except tax purposes, so why not?

I have no problem with state sanctioned marriage as long as the state keeps their hands out of the church completely on this matter. "The separation of church and state" is intended to protect religious institutions from the infringement of the state.

Call me "homophobe" or whatever you want with not being as accepting of a mockery of marriage as you, but I just find it laughable. I don't have anything in the world against whatever people do in their bedroom but I think it should be kept there and private. I'll be damned before I ever refer to two women as "wives" or two men as "husbands".

j.p.



I'll call you a homophobe for referring to gay rights as a "mockery".

-- -------- Post added at 08:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:00 PM ----------


I don't have anything in the world against whatever people do in their bedroom but I think it should be kept there and private.
j.p.

God damnit this has angered me SO much. I'm trying to find reasons why you'd say this. This is the a-typical response from a homophobe. "I don't care what they do just do it in private" - is the usual response from someone who'd have no problems with a straight couple doing the same things in public such as showing affection. That makes it a discriminatory belief. By the same theory you should be condemning straight couples who get married to private ceremonies? I'm confused by this.

What makes this such a "mockery" in your eyes J.p?

[blind2d]

as long as they dont share the same number of chromosomes :rolleyes:

Um... Men and women have the same number of chromosomes, it's just the last two (of the 23) are XX for women and XY for men. Jurassic Park, DEVO, and high school Bio taught me that.

[Danny]

Um... Men and women have the same number of chromosomes, it's just the last two (of the 23) are XX for women and XY for men. Jurassic Park, DEVO, and high school Bio taught me that.



i was making a sarcastic joke about stupid people who are misinformed. thats the joke.

[SymphonicX]

i was making a sarcastic joke about stupid people who are misinformed. thats the joke.

Good save....almost!

[MikePizzoff]

Hey, legal marriage by the state is just a piece of paper with no merit anyway except tax purposes, so why not?

I have no problem with state sanctioned marriage as long as the state keeps their hands out of the church completely on this matter. "The separation of church and state" is intended to protect religious institutions from the infringement of the state.

Call me "homophobe" or whatever you want with not being as accepting of a mockery of marriage as you, but I just find it laughable. I don't have anything in the world against whatever people do in their bedroom but I think it should be kept there and private. I'll be damned before I ever refer to two women as "wives" or two men as "husbands".

j.p.

I'm with Symphonic on this one. You've also confused me, though. You say you have no problem with same-sex marriage, but then you go on to say you aren't accepting of it because it's a mockery (by your religion's standards).

This whole thing reminds me of the end of segregation. Back then, a large percent of the population was livid over blacks integrating with whites, however now it's just a miniscule percentage that feel this way. I bet 40-50 years from now when [hopefully] every state allows same-sex marriage, people will look back on these times and think the large population opposing this were being feeble (for lack of a better term).

[JDFP]

Clarification:

I have no issue with same-sex marriage mandated by the state for legal status. On a secular level I don't have a problem with it at all. By state standard it's a piece of paper for taxation purpose (and also for medical/insurances purposes as well -- no problem from me in insuring partners no matter the sex are afforded the same insurance rights and medical rights as well) - so no issue with me there at all.

It's only when the state begins to regulate that religious institutions must recognize same-sex marriage or have it shoved it upon them that I have a major issue with it. I just don't believe that state marriage and the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony are the same thing, they aren't. So, I have no qualms with the state-approved legal status of homosexual marriage at all, only the sacramental aspect of it when I don't recognize as being a legitimate marriage as in Holy Matrimony.

I'm not a flaming Neo-Conservative and generally despise interference of religious institutions on civil matters being that I'm an old fashioned paleo-conservative. Religion needs to butt out of civil matters. So, I say bring on legalized state approved "marriages". The church should stay out of it. Likewise, the government needs to get the hell out of religious matters completely and should have no jurisdiction or hand in the matter of sacramental and liturgical issues.

j.p.

[Mr. Clean]

What a joke...

[rongravy]

same sex marriage, sure. adoption by gay couples, no. that is my stance, so what of it?

[SymphonicX]

Clarification:

I have no issue with same-sex marriage mandated by the state for legal status. On a secular level I don't have a problem with it at all. By state standard it's a piece of paper for taxation purpose (and also for medical/insurances purposes as well -- no problem from me in insuring partners no matter the sex are afforded the same insurance rights and medical rights as well) - so no issue with me there at all.

It's only when the state begins to regulate that religious institutions must recognize same-sex marriage or have it shoved it upon them that I have a major issue with it. I just don't believe that state marriage and the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony are the same thing, they aren't. So, I have no qualms with the state-approved legal status of homosexual marriage at all, only the sacramental aspect of it when I don't recognize as being a legitimate marriage as in Holy Matrimony.

I'm not a flaming Neo-Conservative and generally despise interference of religious institutions on civil matters being that I'm an old fashioned paleo-conservative. Religion needs to butt out of civil matters. So, I say bring on legalized state approved "marriages". The church should stay out of it. Likewise, the government needs to get the hell out of religious matters completely and should have no jurisdiction or hand in the matter of sacramental and liturgical issues.

j.p.

OK I get ya....
But also, doesn't the bible say something about women being banished from town centres when they are on their period? Shit like that? Christian religion of the last 300 years has changed faces completely...I mean if we put ourselves in our current lifestyles in front of a man of God from 300 years ago we'd be fuckin' executed right away for our evil, sinful ways...

So don't you think that religion should evolve at all? Or you think it reached a pivotal point 200 years ago and shouldn't have moved from then? It seems you're blinding yourself to the fact that Christianity is FAR more tolerant now than 100 years ago, then 200 years ago etc etc etc etc - its always moved along. I guess you're saying it should maybe move along without government interference? There's a whole other world of discussion based on that subject in history...

Personally, I think anyone who denies a gay person EXACTLY the same religious and economical rights as a straight person, for whatever reason, I don't really care what, is nothing more than a bigot in my eyes. end of. No rationale is acceptable.



-- -------- Post added at 02:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:02 PM ----------


same sex marriage, sure. adoption by gay couples, no. that is my stance, so what of it?

I'm just glad you don't have the power (I assume) to deny loving parents the right to a child.

[JDFP]

OK I get ya....
But also, doesn't the bible say something about women being banished from town centres when they are on their period? Shit like that? Christian religion of the last 300 years has changed faces completely...I mean if we put ourselves in our current lifestyles in front of a man of God from 300 years ago we'd be fuckin' executed right away for our evil, sinful ways...

So don't you think that religion should evolve at all? Or you think it reached a pivotal point 200 years ago and shouldn't have moved from then? It seems you're blinding yourself to the fact that Christianity is FAR more tolerant now than 100 years ago, then 200 years ago etc etc etc etc - its always moved along. I guess you're saying it should maybe move along without government interference? There's a whole other world of discussion based on that subject in history...

Personally, I think anyone who denies a gay person EXACTLY the same religious and economical rights as a straight person, for whatever reason, I don't really care what, is nothing more than a bigot in my eyes. end of. No rationale is acceptable.



-- -------- Post added at 02:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:02 PM ----------



I'm just glad you don't have the power (I assume) to deny loving parents the right to a child.

The whole argument of: "Well, it also says in Leviticus that if you wear clothing of two different kinds of material it's an abomination to God and you should be stoned! Or, if you lie with a woman who is menstruating you should be stoned! Or, if you eat pork you should be stoned!" is all regularly used to argue for the justification of same-sex relationships for a long, long time now because these are all seen as archaic Mosaic law that are no longer followed. So hey, if homosexuality is wrong it equals that we should also be killed for wearing clothing of two different materials because that was wrong too but we mostly all do it anyway. The problem is that this is a false comparison to begin with which doesn't exist.

There's a difference between laws between chukim (laws or decrees which don't really make logical sense to us in the 21st century such as not eating pork or shatnez which argues you can't wear two different types of clothing), mishpatim (laws of obvious social implication), and eduyot (or laws that are for the basis of religious observance/holidays). With the coming and resurrection of Christ I believe that chukim was completely done away with. Thus, we don't kill people for wearing cotton and polyester together or eating pork or observing non-necessary laws any longer as Christians. However, homosexuality is *not* chukim but is rather mishpatim. As such, most mishpatim laws have carried over from Judaism to Christianity and are still followed as part of Christianity today (such as the 10 Commandments). Technically, the only laws a Christian must obey are: "Love the Lord Your God with all your heart, soul, strength, mind, and love your neighbor as yourself." -- however, in following this most of mishpatim still remains. So, the comparison between eating pork or wearing clothes of two different kinds with homosexuality is a false comparison. Sorry for the long winded response to this, but I just wanted to lay this out there.

I do believe that Christianity DOES evolve a great deal over time. This isn't necessarily due to a change in dogma and doctrine at all though, I believe dogmatic truths remain the same, but interpretation of said law certainly changes with the history of time and the changes of society and the world in which we live.

Back on topic for a second: I must apologize if I've come across as being an asshole who doesn't like homosexuals. I have NOTHING against homosexuals who want to have a secular marriage or secular ability to have equal rights and protection afforded by the secular laws and courts. The U.S. should protect all and all citizens should have equal rights under secular concerns. The issue for me isn't a secular one when it comes to religious Holy Matrimony as opposed to state-sanctioned marriage though (which again, are not the same thing), so I just wanted to sum that up.

EDIT: I believe homosexuals should be afforded the same equal rights as other Americans when it comes to social secular law and economic ability (such as not being passed up on a specific job or ability due to sexual orientation). So I agree it would be bigoted to hold against someone their sexual persuasion when it comes to society and secular law. However, we'll have to agree to disagree on religious equality because I do not believe that homosexuals should have the same right to the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony (as opposed to secular state-approved marriage) or equal bearing within religious matters as they do not from my perspective. If I come across as a bigot in this way I guess I'll have to accept it, but it's where I stand on the issue.

j.p.

[EvilNed]

I agree with JDFP. The state should steer clear of the church. The more we ignore it, the quicker it will go away.

And in case there was any question in anybody's mind: Good Job, New York City. Welcome to the 21th century!

[JDFP]

I agree with JDFP. The state should steer clear of the church. The more we ignore it, the quicker it will go away.



Oh, I agree with your first half. That's a first, Ned and I agreeing on anything! The state and the church should remain separate. The state should make no regulation against the church in any way except ensuring the protection of all Americans to worship in the way they desire to worship as protected. As far as the second half...

Napoleon was once speaking with a bishop and said: "I intend on destroying the church!". The bishop laughed and said: "We haven't managed to destroy it ourselves despite our best efforts for 1800 years, how exactly do you intend to do it?". Of course today fundamentalism and radicals still attempt to destroy the church and the teachings of Christ, but we'll still be around and will continue to prevail no matter the trial or tribulation.

j.p.

[Publius]

Back on topic for a second: I must apologize if I've come across as being an asshole who doesn't like homosexuals. I have NOTHING against homosexuals who want to have a secular marriage or secular ability to have equal rights and protection afforded by the secular laws and courts. The U.S. should protect all and all citizens should have equal rights under secular concerns. The issue for me isn't a secular one when it comes to religious Holy Matrimony as opposed to state-sanctioned marriage though (which again, are not the same thing), so I just wanted to sum that up.

One wonders what the purpose of state-sanctioned marriage is anymore. Part of me thinks the state should just get out of the marriage business. Maybe provide civil unions - a purely civil institution - for whoever wants one. Whether that union is also a "marriage" is up to the people involved.

[Danny]

One wonders what the purpose of state-sanctioned marriage is anymore. Part of me thinks the state should just get out of the marriage business. Maybe provide civil unions - a purely civil institution - for whoever wants one. Whether that union is also a "marriage" is up to the people involved.

i would imagine it part of census and taxation stuff and keeping track of people- not in a tin foil hate way but just a method of keeping track of people and families i'd suppose.

[JDFP]

One wonders what the purpose of state-sanctioned marriage is anymore. Part of me thinks the state should just get out of the marriage business. Maybe provide civil unions - a purely civil institution - for whoever wants one. Whether that union is also a "marriage" is up to the people involved.

I agree. It's all a tax and insurance ploy really. A great amount of state-sanctioned marriage really isn't recognized by the church (no specific church, just churches in general) anyway, so you have to ask yourself what the point is anyway other than tax/insurance purposes. With the onslaught of radical feminism in the last 40 years there really isn't a valid reason for at least a man to get married anyway (especially with no-fault divorces and generally getting the "right" to see your children on some weekends) except for religious customs (which can and should be done apart from the state anyway). A man serves to lose just about everything from getting married and gains very little from it. If you're concerned about medical/insurance issues you could just get power-of-attorney for someone else on a legal state-matter and be done with it.

j.p.

[MikePizzoff]

same sex marriage, sure. adoption by gay couples, no. that is my stance, so what of it?

Why are you against adoption by gay couples? Is it because the kids will turn into homosexuals and then THE WHOLE COUNTRY WILL BE TAKEN OVER AND THE HUMAN RACE WILL DIE OFF!?!?!

:D

[Publius]

i would imagine it part of census and taxation stuff and keeping track of people- not in a tin foil hate way but just a method of keeping track of people and families i'd suppose.

Civil unions could keep track of households the same way. In fact it would do a better job than current "marriage," as it would be more politically feasible to craft civil unions in such a way as to encompass households with more than two adults, with related adults, etc.


I agree. It's all a tax and insurance ploy really.

Right, and it's hard to see what the public gets out of the tax benefit, except when minor children are involved. And that could be handled by an expanded dependent exemption instead.

[AcesandEights]

Can't believe we got this through in NY. I was shocked, but pleased.

Reform those tax laws, get government out of marriage and let individual religions decide who they want to marry.


same sex marriage, sure. adoption by gay couples, no. that is my stance, so what of it?

Dunno, a gay couple who own property adjacent to the shorehouse that has been in wife's family for generations have an adopted child (just saw them this weekend, as we were up to the shore) and I find it hard to believe the kid will live a life worse than he would have as a parentless orphan in a 3rd world shithole.

[bassman]

Two gay people can raise a kid just as well as two straight people. I've got two gay aunts that raised a girl who is now a successful (straight) doctor with two kids. Suggesting that two gays would some how "corrupt" or hurt a kid's chances is insane. Loving and responsible parents can come from all angles. Not just two straight people.

Anyway.....good for NY. Hopefully the rest of the country will follow. Although I have a hard time seeing it approved in this corner of the country....

[Danny]

Why are you against adoption by gay couples? Is it because the kids will turn into homosexuals and then THE WHOLE COUNTRY WILL BE TAKEN OVER AND THE HUMAN RACE WILL DIE OFF!?!?!

:D

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y91/khazrak/pvp20091104.png

[darth los]

Hey, legal marriage by the state is just a piece of paper with no merit anyway except tax purposes, so why not?

I have no problem with state sanctioned marriage as long as the state keeps their hands out of the church completely on this matter. "The separation of church and state" is intended to protect religious institutions from the infringement of the state.

Call me "homophobe" or whatever you want with not being as accepting of a mockery of marriage as you, but I just find it laughable. I don't have anything in the world against whatever people do in their bedroom but I think it should be kept there and private. I'll be damned before I ever refer to two women as "wives" or two men as "husbands".

j.p.


I'll call you a homophobe for referring to gay rights as a "mockery".

-- -------- Post added at 08:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:00 PM ----------



God damnit this has angered me SO much. I'm trying to find reasons why you'd say this. This is the a-typical response from a homophobe. "I don't care what they do just do it in private" - is the usual response from someone who'd have no problems with a straight couple doing the same things in public such as showing affection. That makes it a discriminatory belief. By the same theory you should be condemning straight couples who get married to private ceremonies? I'm confused by this.

What makes this such a "mockery" in your eyes J.p?


I'm with Symphonic on this one. You've also confused me, though. You say you have no problem with same-sex marriage, but then you go on to say you aren't accepting of it because it's a mockery (by your religion's standards).

This whole thing reminds me of the end of segregation. Back then, a large percent of the population was livid over blacks integrating with whites, however now it's just a miniscule percentage that feel this way. I bet 40-50 years from now when [hopefully] every state allows same-sex marriage, people will look back on these times and think the large population opposing this were being feeble (for lack of a better term).


I understand where you're coming from JP. It's funny how certain societal issues make "strange bedfellows" (no pun intended), huh?


I won't sugarcoat it and be PC the way he is, cause that just wouldn't be my style. He gives different reasons for feeling the way he does so I'll speak for myself. I feel that if you are a citizen of the united states of America you should have equal protection under the law regardless of race, religion creed, political affiliation, gender or sexual orientation. I believe that homosexuals, if they are american citizens, should have the right to marry that their heterosexual counterparts do. However, it grosses me out to see two guys in a relationship of that manner. If that makes me a homophobe, then bite me (not directed at anyone in particular). And In 50 years it's still gonna gross me out.

If I'm at a movie and two gents are going at it hot and heavy, Hell yeah I'm turning away. Alot of things gross me out such as people kissing their pets and picking their noses in public. Does it mean they don't have the right to do so? Of course not, do it all day long. I just don't want to see it. And if that makes me a nose-pick-a-phobe as well, then so be it.

Now don't get it twisted, I lean left and I'm happy for them. I don't think it's an abomination, I don't think they should burn in hell. Them getting married doesn't affect my life in the least.

And I know that I'm in the minority here, but it takes more guts to take an unpopular position than to say something P.C. that you think everyone wants to hear and is the acceptable societal position. But To quote the great Austin powers it's just "not my bag baby".

:cool:

-- -------- Post added at 11:27 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:23 AM ----------


http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y91/khazrak/pvp20091104.png

That cracks me up too. All this sanctity of marriage bullshit used as an excuse to basically just say what I said.

All these politicians who are on their third marriage, who cheat on each other left and right and send stranger pics of their privates all full of it.

The biggest abomination of all is a hypocrite. Oh yeah, nad Jesus is on my side with that one too.

:cool:

[Tricky]

About time too, homophobia has no place in society these days. Growing up in a small town surrounded by small minded ignorant f**kwits I used to be a bit homophobic in my teenage years, just because I was surrounded by people with that attitude and just thought it was right to go on about "fudgepackers" "shirtlifters" and jeer at people who were gay at school etc. Then I got into my 20's, massively broadened my horizons and began mixing with better people and thankfully my attitudes to things like race & sexuality changed completely, I then got to know a gay lad 4 or 5 years ago through my sister and we've become best mates, we go out drinking all the time, both of us play guitars so I'm regularly round his having a jam, I go on nights out with his other gay friends etc & to me and my mates he's just one of the lads, no issue! which is how it should be. I cant understand why people take such an issue with it, I think theres a lot of truth in the saying that people who are passionately homophobic are actually gay themselves and cant accept it. The only gay people I'm not keen on, and even my gay mate hates these type and regularly calls them "bloody mincers", is the extremely effeminate camp men, they're just irritating!

[darth los]

About time too, homophobia has no place in society these days. Growing up in a small town surrounded by small minded ignorant f**kwits I used to be a bit homophobic in my teenage years, just because I was surrounded by people with that attitude and just thought it was right to go on about "fudgepackers" "shirtlifters" and jeer at people who were gay at school etc. Then I got into my 20's, massively broadened my horizons and began mixing with better people and thankfully my attitudes to things like race & sexuality changed completely, I then got to know a gay lad 4 or 5 years ago through my sister and we've become best mates, we go out drinking all the time, both of us play guitars so I'm regularly round his having a jam, I go on nights out with his other gay friends etc & to me and my mates he's just one of the lads, no issue! which is how it should be. I cant understand why people take such an issue with it, I think theres a lot of truth in the saying that people who are passionately homophobic are actually gay themselves and cant accept it. The only gay people I'm not keen on, and even my gay mate hates these type and regularly calls them "bloody mincers", is the extremely effeminate camp men, they're just irritating!


Well, the people who would either verbally harass or go as far as assaulting homosexuals need their fucking asses whipped. There's no place for that. My uncle is a gay man living in Puerto Rico. He can't even officially come out because of the problems it would cause him. When he retires he wants to come to the states so he can live the way he wants to and now that NY allows gay marriage even more so. If anyone were to abuse or assault him because of his sexual orientation well...let's just say it would be wrong.

Verbally assaulting people for being something they have no control over, whther it's their race gender or sexual orientation is not only childish, but i'd go as far as to say it's evil. Why do you think that the suicide rate among gay teens is so high? And that's a shame.

:cool:

[strayrider]

...Verbally assaulting people for being something they have no control over...sexual orientation...

I'll agree that assaulting (verbally or otherwise) anyone for any reason is probably wrong, though not necessarily "evil" per se.

The problem with your "no control over" statement when it comes to sexual orientation (NOT sexual identify--completely different condition) is that it is not conclusively backed up with scientific evidence. Certainly, the Minnesota Twin studies in this area point to the possibility that homosexuality "might" have a genetic (nature) causal factor, they also point to the environment (nurture) just as strongly. Basically, the APA's position is that sexual orientation might be caused by either factor--that is, homosexuality is learned behavior, genetic behavior, or a combination of both; however, to date there is no specific gene that has been identified as a "gay" gene. While some members of the gay community have taken the genetic explanation and run with it, there is still a great deal of uncertainty and debate within the psychological and scientific community.

:D

-stray-

[Publius]

I feel that if you are a citizen of the united states of America you should have equal protection under the law regardless of race, religion creed, political affiliation, gender or sexual orientation. I believe that homosexuals, if they are american citizens, should have the right to marry that their heterosexual counterparts do.

There's fairly broad agreement on that, I think. The disagreement is over what "marry" means. The way traditionalists see it, gays have always had every right to marry. They're just not interested in it. Because, you know, they're gay.


http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y91/khazrak/pvp20091104.png

That seems like a spectacular exercise in missing the point. When someone says they're worried that redefining "marriage" to include similar homosexual relationships will weaken marriage, they don't mean that their own marriage will be directly impacted. Like any time a social institution is weakened, tinkering with it affects the marginal case most, not the typical case. Two examples illustrate the point.

One is in the middle of the last century when various benefits for unwed mothers were created or increased. Nobody thought the typical teenage girl would think "hey, now I'm gonna go out and get pregnant to get me some welfare!" But the marginal effect was to make unwed motherhood that much less of a burden that enough at-risk teens just a bit less cautious, and the illegitimacy surely and steadily crept upward.

The second is no-fault divorce. When no-fault divorce was proposed, its proponents responded to its critics by arguing: "Don't be silly. I'm not going to go out and divorce my wife just because I make the divorce process a little easier for the people whose marriages are dead anyways." And enough people hearing that argument thought "yeah, no-fault divorce isn't going to make me get divorced" that the reforms passed. And it's true, no-fault divorce didn't bring about the end of every marriage. But it did affect a lot of marginal cases, people on the edge who could have gone one way or the other, who might have stayed married under the old rules but had that much less incentive to avoid divorce that they just gave up under the new rules. And the divorce rate went up.

It's all about the margins.

[strayrider]

Basically, the APA's position is that sexual orientation...

After further review, I've reached the conclusion that the APA (American Psychological Association) might not have been the best reference in terms of this particular issue. I've re-read their stance on sexual orientation and their position is that it is, indeed, not within a person's control. This indicates (to me at any rate) that they've already decided on genetics as the prime causal factor even though they admit that the evidence for this is strong (though not conclusive). I see this in several different ways.

1) They believe that the evidence will eventually prove genetic cause and they are covering their tails in a way that is PC.

2) They are protecting themselves from the gay lobby who, a decade or so ago, pressured them into removing homosexuality from the DSM as a mental disorder (much in the way that the gay lobby pressured the AMA into renaming GRIDS (Gay Related Immune Deficiency Syndrome) to AIDS).

What is known in this area is that research does seem to link the X chromosome in some men toward homosexual orientation, while other research (conducted by LeVay at the Salk Institute) appears to indicate certain brain structures (specifically in a segment of the hypothalamus) as potential causal factors in sexual orientation. These findings, however, are inclusive. As of yet, sexual orientation cannot be conclusively linked to either genetics or brain structure (or environment, for that matter).

What the hell difference would it make anyway? As a heterosexual, male student of psychology (AA, working towards an MA in Addictions Counseling) I am of the opinion that people DO NOT NEED a genetic explanation to justify their lifestyle. From my point of view this is only a issue due to societal expectations, legal ramifications, and condemnation from various religious organizations. Our reality could (and should) be simplified, but I'm not holding my breath on that one.

:D

-stray-

[darth los]

What the hell difference would it make anyway? As a heterosexual, male student of psychology (AA, working towards an MA in Addictions Counseling) I am of the opinion that people DO NOT NEED a genetic explanation to justify their lifestyle. From my point of view this is only a issue due to societal expectations, legal ramifications, and condemnation from various religious organizations. Our reality could (and should) be simplified, but I'm not holding my breath on that one.

:D

-stray-

It's been my experience that humas don't like the unexplained. We fear the unknown. It's the reason we fear death. It's the reason why there can't just be lightning bolts splitting the sky. We needed an explanation. So we decided that it was Zues hurling them down fron mount OlyMPUS.

Things that are unfathomable to us make us uncomfortable. For a long time, To many heterosexuals, it was unfathomable that a person could be as lustful, passionate and loving to a person of the same sex as they would be about the opposite sex. Therefore, there must be something mentally wrong with them.

It's a theory anyway.

:cool:

[GRMonLI]

Many of you know I am an openly gay man, in New York State, in a monogamous 14 yr relationship (in fact today is my anniversary). I am usually the first to hop on the homophobia bandwagon here.

But what bothers me about this conversation is the whole "Church and State" thing. Simply put if you want the state out of the church so much...why does the church feel that it should dictate to the state as to what it can and cannot do? The biggest hold up to the NY marriage equality bill was the "protections" put in place for the church.

If the church does not want to be "regulated" by the state why then shoudl they receive state funds and tax exempt status. They cannot have it both ways.....but they insist on it.

Can you say HYPOCRITE?????

[rongravy]

Can you say HYPOCRITE?????
I read in the paper today that although Obama applauds NY for this, he won't openly endorse it hisself. Grow some balls, Barack...
I'm pretty conservative in many of my beliefs, but totally disagree on gay marriage. I say let gays and lesbians have the good and bad along with the heterosexuals. The tax breaks, but also things like getting screwed over in the divorce, lol, like the rest of us.
As far as the church, as delusional as they can be, they gots alot of people that can, and do, vote. Sadly, they are pretty anti gay from a book that was written when the world was still flat...

[krakenslayer]

:mad: How can any State sanction this abominable and obscene crime against nature? What is going through the minds of those who would allow such an... oh...

Oh, wait...

I'm thinking of mullets. I always get mullets and gay marriage mixed up. Damn. Sorry about that. Carry on. :D

[BillyRay]

Oh, wait...

I'm thinking of mullets. I always get mullets and gay marriage mixed up. Damn. Sorry about that. Carry on. :D

There's a "party in the back" joke, but I'm not makin' it...

[kortick]

Quite honestly I can not see WHY gay people would
want to get married in a church.
I understand the legal benefits and they do deserve them
as any other long committed couple does.

But really look at the stats for marriage:
According to enrichment journal on the divorce rate in America:
The divorce rate in America for first marriage is 41%
The divorce rate in America for second marriage is 60%
The divorce rate in America for third marriage is 73%

Gay people are the same as straight people:
there are some who are scumbags and there
are some who are stand up good people.

And as far as the church goes, well
seeing how the priest that confirmed me
commited purjury in a murder trial,
paid young men to give him enemas filled with holy water,
stole over $200,000 from the parish he was in charge of,
hired young male prostitutes and went on lavish trips with them,
got AIDS and then refused to reveal the names of anyone
he had sex with so they could be warned,
and then died in a mental ward from AIDS...
I can not for the life of me see why anyone would want
approval from THEM for anything.

The benefits of being married allows them legal
rights that they should not be denied.
One day gay marriage will be legal in every state.

[AssassinFromHell]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/06/25/new.york.gay.marriage/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Awesome. Only 44 states to go.

Still waiting for all of my homophobic acquaintances to post hateful things on Facebook about this; I'm sure some of the meatheads from high school will call me a "fag" for approving of it.

I personally think there should be no state-sanctioned marriage, period. Government has better things to do than worrying about who wants to be miserable with one another.

And for tax issues? Abolish the IRS, since the income tax largely goes to our war budget. The military-industrial complex could use a breather, anyway.

But until my libertarian utopia comes true, equality is the right move. Kudos to New York.

[SymphonicX]

I won't sugarcoat it and be PC the way he is, cause that just wouldn't be my style. He gives different reasons for feeling the way he does so I'll speak for myself. I feel that if you are a citizen of the united states of America you should have equal protection under the law regardless of race, religion creed, political affiliation, gender or sexual orientation. I believe that homosexuals, if they are american citizens, should have the right to marry that their heterosexual counterparts do. However, it grosses me out to see two guys in a relationship of that manner. If that makes me a homophobe, then bite me (not directed at anyone in particular). And In 50 years it's still gonna gross me out. :cool:

You know in a weird way I'm with you on this - the argument for "keeping it out of public view" only applies to this sort of thing really. A straight couple getting it on with each other is mostly inappropriate in a public place like a cinema or restaurant or something - so that applies to straight just as much as gay.

And personally, I find men absolutely repulsive - so I can relate to that.
My issue is with the rounding off of the whole subject, or when it's applied to completely acceptable things within a straight relationship - for instance using the argument "I don't care what they do as long as it's in their own private room" when conversing about gay people holding hands in public. Or using the same argument regarding just them being a couple whatsoever. That's when it goes into discriminatory - its the context in which it's applied. I would use the argument "I don't care what they want to do to each other as long as they keep it private" towards a straight couple fingering in a club or something.

Public morality is a separate issue to not wanting to acknowledge the existence of a culture of people whatsoever...and that's how it's usually applied.