NY activist judges allow same sex marriage

[Avatar4321]

Whether or not you agree with homosexuality, the desire to marry the person you love with your friends and family there to publically support you as you do so, should be a familiar desire for most people.

Gay marriage has nothing to do with love. Homosexuality has nothing to do with love. it mocks human love an intimacy. Its purely lust and selfishness. Human love creates life. Human lust destroys it. Ill oppose my friends if they want to marry out of lust or for money or for some reason other than love regardless.

The fact is homosexuals are very confused individuals and encouraging such deviant activities rather than helping them find peace and happiness is going to destroy them.

 

[theim]

No rights are being created...Existing ones are simnply being extended to all. We are, or at least we were, an inclusive society, where all could enjoy equal protection under the law.

I (a hetero) can marry a woman if I wish. I cannot marry a man.
A gay man can marry a woman if he wishes. He cannot marry a man.

The rights ARE extended to all. Heterosexuals can't marry their own sex, neither can gays.

 

[Johnney]

I (a hetero) can marry a woman if I wish. I cannot marry a man.
A gay man can marry a woman if he wishes. He cannot marry a man.

The rights ARE extended to all. Heterosexuals can't marry their own sex, neither can gays.

it jsut makes my skin crawl to think about it.

 

[OCA]

Same-gender couples are denied the same benefits, rights, responsibilites and protections under the law that traditional couples enjoy, and they are being denied these benfits and protections without due process. The rational for denying them these benefits is no different than the rationale put forth to justify anti-miscegenation laws, which were all finally overturned in 1967.

They are being denied nothing rational. They are being denied however the right to have their perversion officially recognized. Get over it....America views this has a perversion and rightfully so.

I suggest they go to Canada.

 

[OCA]

Actually, it has everything to do with my disagreement with him, and even with yourself. What you percieve as "continual attacks on the foundations of American society", are only criticisms of your narrow, fear-blinkered view of the world. You and OCA, as well as several others here, have so much energy bound up in an essentially fear based view of the world, that when anyone who is not so shackled by fear questions that world view, you lash out at them. You accuse them of hating that which you cannot even see clearly. It is why you accuse me of hating America. And, you...could...not...be...more...wrong.

<blockquote>Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. - Matthew 7:5</blockquote>

Lol anti-America boy attacks Christianity at every turn but then turns around and quotes scripture. Can anyone say hypocrite?

 

[MoltenLava]

Bullypulpit wrote t OCA:

Hmmm....So, anybody who disagrees with your perversely self-righteous and distorted world view hates America. You are so full of crap your eyes are brown. Beside that, you really are a sick, bitter piece of work.

I think it would also be tremendously funny to be in the room with Mr. OCA were he ever to discover that the "Soprano's" actor that he has depicted in his avatar is an extreme liberal. I think that would be highly amusing.

And, yes, though I am new here, the truth of it precedes me: when the argument is thoughtful, well researched, considerate of another's posters feelings, and completely lacking in verbal attacks and childish name-calling, inevitably that person is a liberal.

 

[MoltenLava]

Ill oppose my friends if they want to marry out of lust or for money or for some reason other than love regardless.

Boy, howdy! I'm sure all of YOUR friends are just thrilled that you'll be riding shotgun over their bedtime activities! Whew! Just when I thought there'd be no one left to stick their noses THAT FAR into the affairs of others, you romp to the rescue!

 

[Avatar4321]

And, yes, though I am new here, the truth of it precedes me: when the argument is thoughtful, well researched, considerate of another's posters feelings, and completely lacking in verbal attacks and childish name-calling, inevitably that person is a liberal.

you dont know Bully much yet. There is nothing well researched or thought out about his posts. he is essentially a troll who makes takes cheap shots at people on the threads sometimes.

 

[musicman]

Boy, howdy! I'm sure all of YOUR friends are just thrilled that you'll be riding shotgun over their bedtime activities! Whew! Just when I thought there'd be no one left to stick their noses THAT FAR into the affairs of others, you romp to the rescue!

Is that some of your "consideration for other posters' feelings" in operation? Wow. Awesome.

 

[Johnney]

Is that some of your "consideration for other posters' feelings" in operation? Wow. Awesome.

yeha hes going far here

 

[Annie]

yeha hes going far here

He should go far, I mean far!

 

[Johnney]

He should go far, I mean far!

like real far.... start walking...lol

 

[Annie]

like real far.... start walking...lol

See, I CAN communicate!

 

[Bullypulpit]

Gay marriage has nothing to do with love. Homosexuality has nothing to do with love. it mocks human love an intimacy. Its purely lust and selfishness. Human love creates life. Human lust destroys it. Ill oppose my friends if they want to marry out of lust or for money or for some reason other than love regardless.

The fact is homosexuals are very confused individuals and encouraging such deviant activities rather than helping them find peace and happiness is going to destroy them.

Do you even <b><i>KNOW</i></b> any gay people?

I've known plenty of straight couples whose relationships were "...purely lust and selfishness...", and they were as disasterous as relationships between same-gender couples based upon nothing more than that. You don't spend 10, 20, 30 years or more with someone based upon "...purely lust and selfishness...". And I've met more than a few same-gender couples who have been together for not just years, but decades...and yes, they DO love each other. And, no, they're not confused. If anyone is confused, it is most likely you.

Forty years ago you would have been spouting the same crap about inter-racial couples.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Lol anti-America boy attacks Christianity at every turn but then turns around and quotes scripture. Can anyone say hypocrite?

Well, since you seem to be completely lacking any genuine understanding of Christian doctrine, I figure I might as well try to set you upon the path of righteousness...Even though it really seems to be a case of casting pearls before swine.

 

[Johnney]

Do you even <b><i>KNOW</i></b> any gay people?

well we "know" you bully, so close enough. it doesnt matter how long peole are together. it happens. ive known people whove been together for 25+ years only to call it quits when the kids are grown and gone. staying together with someone you dont love for that long is ridiculous. staying together with someone cause of the sex it ridiculous. if your going to be in a relation with someone, be in a relation.

 

[Bullypulpit]

well we "know" you bully, so close enough. it doesnt matter how long peole are together. it happens. ive known people whove been together for 25+ years only to call it quits when the kids are grown and gone. staying together with someone you dont love for that long is ridiculous. staying together with someone cause of the sex it ridiculous. if your going to be in a relation with someone, be in a relation.

Firstly, you don't know me. Secondly, you're right, it doesn't matter how long people are together if they're in a loveless relationship, be they straight or gay. Such relationships are doomed to eventual failure. Thirdly, as I said before, I've met many same-gender couples who have been in loving, monogamous relationships for decades. One such couple has been together for nearly 50 years. You don't get to that point if there isn't love.

 

[Johnney]

Firstly, you don't know me. Secondly, you're right, it doesn't matter how long people are together if they're in a loveless relationship, be they straight or gay. Such relationships are doomed to eventual failure. Thirdly, as I said before, I've met many same-gender couples who have been in loving, monogamous relationships for decades. One such couple has been together for nearly 50 years. You don't get to that point if there isn't love.

hold on bully, let me get my tissues, i can feel a tear coming to my eye.
and if your needing glasses, which it seems you do, head to pearl vision, they are having a special right now.
if you dont, and just wanted to read what you wanted to in my post you would have noticed the "" (thats quotation marks for you) you would have been turning brain cells over and should have known what it meant.

 

[Yurt]

Do you even <b><i>KNOW</i></b> any gay people?

I've known plenty of straight couples whose relationships were "...purely lust and selfishness...", and they were as disasterous as relationships between same-gender couples based upon nothing more than that. You don't spend 10, 20, 30 years or more with someone based upon "...purely lust and selfishness...". And I've met more than a few same-gender couples who have been together for not just years, but decades...and yes, they DO love each other. And, no, they're not confused. If anyone is confused, it is most likely you.

Forty years ago you would have been spouting the same crap about inter-racial couples.

Bully has a point. In that man and woman are allowed rights (LEGAL) thata same sex couple is denied, solely on this being a sin. My opinion, love the sinner, not the sin. However, this country does not abide by many rules of the old testament. I find it intriguing that this issue brings up many of these types of laws. If we bring up some, what about the rest? Anyways, my point is, this fight (at least among some very close family members of mine) is SOLELY about legal rights, not about something being called a "marriage." For as one pointed out to me and has been said in this post, many man - woman marriages are SOLELY for lust. Maybe money, maybe government, maybe empire, and so forth. All these have been sanctioned. Are these marriages?????? The point is, marriage is as was defined in Genisis. Today, legal rights are a different thing.

Where I disagree with Bully is that people of the same sex should be allowed "marriage." This is fundamentally/historically and so forth, a union of man and woman. It was; to the predominantly faiths of today, Christian/Jewish/Islam, a symbol of a man and a woman. Atheist? I don't know, do they have a definition of marriage?

I also do not support Bully's last sentence.

Where Bully has a point is that the State (or the Federal government vis the constitution which influences the States) has power over marriage "contracts." Marriage is a fundamental right. However, here is where is gets real interesting. Before 1975 (In CA) there were different presumptions on women's property rights acquired during marriage. Even earlier than 1975 (late 1900's), it was presumed that all property acquired during marriage was the husbands. The question is:

Is this a fundamental right? That the husband takes the property, in presumption.

I don't think so. I think the fundamental right at issue is the "RIGHT" to marry. This is commonly understood as between a man and a woman. No problem.

However, as discussed in a brief synosp of marriage law in some states, has evolved with modern times. This simply and only means, that the rights between the parties has evolved. Go back a hundred or so years and a woman would not have half the rights she has today. Does anyone here support this?

I will assume not. That being. There is a law in and amonst the various states that recognize "common law" marriage. This a UNION between two poeple, man and woman that has NOT been sanctified in a court of law. These two people, however, are afforded certain rights akin to people that are married. Their LEGAL rights are less albeit, however, they have rights concerning the distribution of property upon dissolution.

Next we come to the legal rights that marriage grants. Nowhere in the constitution are the rights "fundamentally" recognized. However, these rights have been deemed to be fundamentally recognized by the various courts of law, not the legislature (this is why the higher courts are giving this very issue back to the states).

These contractual rights are not fundamental, they have been evolving as the course of rights of people has over the years. For example:

The right to visit a partner in the hospital

The right to receive the half of your community property

The right to make life and death decisions for your partner

The right to inheritance

The right to joint tenancies (unless expressly stated)

The right to support

The right to Intestate wills

The list goes on. However, the list remains. This was a very closely watched issue in WA state. Gays lost at the Supreme court level (for WA). Ok, no one barked over that. Activist judges? Did not hear a peep. So now the legislature is having to the work of deciding where this should stand. AS IT SHOULD be. Historically this a legislative function, Judges should back off.

But, please consider, that no matter where you stand on the issue, certain rights are not inherent under our constitution, they have been allowed over time.

Thank you.

 

[CivilLiberty]

Where I disagree with Bully is that people of the same sex should be allowed "marriage." This is fundamentally/historically and so forth, a union of man and woman. It was; to the predominantly faiths of today, Christian/Jewish/Islam, a symbol of a man and a woman. Atheist? I don't know, do they have a definition of marriage?

1) Marriage BEGAN before the god of Abraham religions, as way for a man to "own" a woman.

2) Historically, gay marriage was not unheard of - For instance emperor Nero married men twice. around 59 AD.

3) In 342 AD the Romans outlawed gay marriage.

4) It wasn't until 1563 that the Catholic Church officially "sanctified" marriage as part of canon law.


(as a side note it's interesting that the 13th century the greek orthodox church had a ceremony for the marriage of two men to each other.)



Regards

Andy