NY Becomes Sixth State To Approve Same-sex Marriage

[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.

[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. -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. 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. -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. -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.

[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]

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.

[BillyRay]

Oh, wait... I'm thinking of mullets. I always get mullets and gay marriage mixed up. Damn. Sorry about that. Carry on. 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/...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. 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.