NY activist judges allow same sex marriage

[OCA]

LOL - OCA is so predictable and reactionary.

Anyway, in answer to your question: "Natural" (as well as "Normal") is a subjective term. I can no more explain why someone would think it is natural for him to mate with someone having the same sexual organs than you can explain how it is that other activities are natural. Is smoking a "natural" behavior?

It simply seems right and natural for some people. They become deeply, romantically, and sexually attracted to people who may or may not have the same sex organs.

Additionally, homosexual acts/behavior is a choice to the same extent that heterosexual behavior is a choice. Even if (and this is a big "If") we assume for the sake of argument, that such behavior is not natural, what difference does it make? Should there be a law declaring all unnatural activity illegal and never to be legalized? I wonder if smoking would survive such a law.

Still with the same innane analogies which have nothing to do with the topic at hand. I thought you would've improved by now.

Hey Matts did you check the vote on queers on Nov.2? 11-0 for the good guys.

 

[OCA]

Ahhh yes...Unable to argue the issue in any rational manner, you (<i>true to form</i>) take the low road of puerile insults and childish jibes. It sounds like you're already well on the way to early onset Alzheimer's. Have a nice trip.

Bully I and others have taken you to the proverbial cleaners on this and all other issues. We are now just doing our victory dance. BTW thank god for the good people of Ohio and their vote on Nov.2 against the insiduous horde.

 

[OCA]

The only thing irrelevant here is you. And the only plague is the plague of ignorance, of which you are a victim. And what are you basing your groundless accustaions of my being a "terrorist sympathizer" beyond your fever dreams?

Your support of everyone but America. Your continued support of terorists who behead innocents and your fanatic pursual of soldiers doing their job.

 

[OCA]

You're not ignorant if I disagree with you. If you can't make a valid argument as to why I should agree with you or resort to cheap name-calling...Then you're ignorant.

You never answered my question...Is a woman fellating a man or having anal sex with him abnormal? If not, why?

As for the terrorist symp crap, that's just typical meaningless rhetoric for those who can't make a cogent argument. Accuse those who oppose you of being unpatriotic, America-hating...blah...blah...blah...blah...blah.

Dismissed.

Bully I and others have made many cogent arguments, only if you disagree then you are ignorant by your standards.

No a woman blowing a man is not unnatural nor is a guy boning a gal in the caboose. ITS ALL ABOUT MAN AND WOMAN!

Are you autistic or something?

 

[acludem]

"I don't like gay people (or whatever slur you choose)" and "I think gay people(or whatever pejorative term you like) aren't normal" aren't cogent arguments.
That's pretty much all we hear from the anti-gay marriage crowd in here.

acludem

 

[OCA]

"I don't like gay people (or whatever slur you choose)" and "I think gay people(or whatever pejorative term you like) aren't normal" aren't cogent arguments.
That's pretty much all we hear from the anti-gay marriage crowd in here.

acludem

That is completely false and you know it. Pick up the intellectual contexts of your posts.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Bully I and others have made many cogent arguments, only if you disagree then you are ignorant by your standards.

No a woman blowing a man is not unnatural nor is a guy boning a gal in the caboose. ITS ALL ABOUT MAN AND WOMAN!

Are you autistic or something?

The only argument you, and others, have made is that you don't like gays. Beyond that, you've offered no substantive arguments as to why same-gender couples should not be able to have their relationship legitimized by the state thus granting them the same rights as their straignt counterparts as well as bestowing the same responsibilities to them.

And as for the anti-American BS, and it is just that...BS, are you sure you don't work for Karl Rove? That seems to be a favorite trick of his...Anyone who points out the obvious flaws in the administration's positions is branded unpatriotic and un-American. Such tactics are the refuge of the morally bankrupt.

Have a nice day.

 

[OCA]

The only argument you, and others, have made is that you don't like gays. Beyond that, you've offered no substantive arguments as to why same-gender couples should not be able to have their relationship legitimized by the state thus granting them the same rights as their straignt counterparts as well as bestowing the same responsibilities to them.

And as for the anti-American BS, and it is just that...BS, are you sure you don't work for Karl Rove? That seems to be a favorite trick of his...Anyone who points out the obvious flaws in the administration's positions is branded unpatriotic and un-American. Such tactics are the refuge of the morally bankrupt.

Have a nice day.

LMFAO! You are obviously lacking in the reading comprehension game. Get some ridilin(sp?)

You have been bent over backwards(notice the pun) and reamed on this issue. Your lack of even acknowledging the overwhelming and voluminous factual information pertaining to negative aspects(as if there is anything positive) of the homosexual lifestyle choice says alot about your objectivity.

As for the anti-American and obvious flaws crap, we just use your own words against you and I guess if there were obvious flaws well he wouldn't be serving a 2nd term now would he Bully Bin Laden?

I still think you live in a wonderful and sensible state which was shown on Nov.2

 

[musicman]

"I don't like gay people (or whatever slur you choose)" and "I think gay people(or whatever pejorative term you like) aren't normal" aren't cogent arguments.
That's pretty much all we hear from the anti-gay marriage crowd in here.

acludem

The fact that that's "all you hear" doesn't mean that's all being said. I don't doubt you when you say "That's...all we hear" - more's the pity. You merely confirm my belief that liberalism requires of it's devotees a kind of self-imposed blindness and deafness.

As OCA pointed out, board members have cited factual evidence that homosexuality is a perverse and dangerous lifestyle. We humbly invite you to respond.

Or, if you prefer, simply continue living the fantasy that conservatives are slack-jawed yokels whom you have reduced - with your cleverness - to abject name-calling. It's your bankrupt ideology that's fading into irrelevance; do whatever you think is best.

 

[Johnney]

The fact that that's "all you hear" doesn't mean that's all being said. I don't doubt you when you say "That's...all we hear" - more's the pity. You merely confirm my belief that liberalism requires of it's devotees a kind of self-imposed blindness and deafness.

As OCA pointed out, board members have cited factual evidence that homosexuality is a perverse and dangerous lifestyle. We humbly invite you to respond.

Or, if you prefer, simply continue living the fantasy that conservatives are slack-jawed yokels whom you have reduced - with your cleverness - to abject name-calling. It's your bankrupt ideology that's fading into irrelevance; do whatever you think is best.

well thats the problem, no matter whats said, that is all they hear

 

[Avatar4321]

well thats the problem, no matter whats said, that is all they hear

Take a day or too away from this thread and they are still ignoring the responses we've given them.

They continue to think we oppose homosexuality out of fear or hatred. this is not the case (Although i will admit i do get rather irritated when people try to circumvent our Constitution and impose their will on the people contrary to our express wishes.)

They continue to go on with the its natural argument despite the flaws which have been pointed out with that argument and despite the facts they are hypocrites for trying to force people to support the "natural" act of homosexuality while condemning people for the natural acts of intolerance, hate, violence, fear etc, even though there is no evidence that any of the people they have condemned have acted in such a manner. They just cant deal with the fact that just because its natural doesnt make it right. In many animals its natural for mothers to eat their children. I sure hope they dont try to justify infanticide and cannibalism now...wait, i forgot, they already justify infanticide.

They still ignore the evidence that shows how the homosexual lifestyle is unhealthy and detrimental to society. They go on how its none of our business. well, when our tax money is being spent to deal with the negative consequences that homosexuality and the breakdown of the family have on society you better believe we have a right to oppose activties that drain so much cash from more important things like education and national security. When homosexuals try to erode the Constitutional process this nation is founded upon to impose their agenda against the will of the people. You better damn well believe we have reason to oppose it. When homosexuals try to force their deviant life styles on innocent american children we sure as heck do have a reason to oppose it.

The fact is the only reason that has been given to justify gay marriage is that we are all bigots, racists, homophobes if we dont support it. That isn't a very strong argument. It never has been, never will be.

Oh and I have no doubt Bully is going to come back to this entire post like he has before and say my religious views have nothing to do with the debate despite the fact that i havent even mentioned religion in reference to the topic until now. Regardless though Bully, my religious views are completely relevant to the debate. Despite the fact that there are tons of secular reasons to oppose gay marriage, the fact is even if there wasn't, the fact that my religion says no to it is reason enough to oppose it. Because unlike others, I dont pick and choose which parts of my religion I want to follow. Neither do alot of other Americans. Many Americans are spiritual and religious people (and contrary to Bully i dont find the terms mutually exclusive). In fact, spirituality is a far more personal and powerful factor than the left is willing to admit. This nation was built on the ideal of freedom of religion. And if you think Americans are going to let the left oppress their religious freedoms just so you can impose an unhealthy lifestyle on Americans and that those religious freedoms being oppressed arent a factor in the debate than you are about to see what happens when the so called "religious right" starts standing up to your agenda. Simply because you dont want the religious aspect to matter doesnt mean that the religious aspect isn't valid because you dont agree with it. Its valid with alot of Americans.

Oh and i know that despite the fact that you hate religion so much. you ought to maybe stop and think that maybe there are reasons why religions oppose this. Only fools discount the wisdom of thousands of years because they think they know better. And when i say think about it i mean to go further than your "It was just fear and hate" talking point and actually think about it. I think thats the main problem with the left. they want to "fix" the "problems" they see in society without waiting to think that maybe there's a very good reason to be doing things that way.

 

[Gem]

Bully,

Why are civil unions alright for two people, but not three?

 

[CivilLiberty]

Bully,

Why are civil unions alright for two people, but not three?

I think they SHOULD be alright for three, so long as *all* persons know/consent.

Why should the government limit such relationships?

A

 

[MissileMan]

They continue to go on with the its natural argument despite the flaws which have been pointed out with that argument and despite the facts they are hypocrites for trying to force people to support the "natural" act of homosexuality while condemning people for the natural acts of intolerance, hate, violence, fear etc, even though there is no evidence that any of the people they have condemned have acted in such a manner. They just cant deal with the fact that just because its natural doesnt make it right.

So let me get this straight...intolerance, hate, fear, etc. are all natural human emotions, but those who oppose homosexuality are above any of those things being what motivates their opposition?

They still ignore the evidence that shows how the homosexual lifestyle is unhealthy and detrimental to society. They go on how its none of our business. well, when our tax money is being spent to deal with the negative consequences that homosexuality and the breakdown of the family have on society you better believe we have a right to oppose activties that drain so much cash from more important things like education and national security.

Homosexuality isn't the biggest drain on our tax dollars...change your target to tobacco,drug, and alcohol abuse if you are really worried about having more money to spend on education. And IMHO, the welfare system is responsible for the breakdown of the family here in the U.S.

When homosexuals try to erode the Constitutional process this nation is founded upon to impose their agenda against the will of the people. You better damn well believe we have reason to oppose it.

Actually, you should have said the will of some of the people. I say put it to a vote and put it to bed.

When homosexuals try to force their deviant life styles on innocent american children we sure as heck do have a reason to oppose it.

I must have missed all the child abductions by homosexuals in the news lately...please supply a link to support this.

Oh and i know that despite the fact that you hate religion so much. you ought to maybe stop and think that maybe there are reasons why religions oppose this. Only fools discount the wisdom of thousands of years because they think they know better.

Only a bigger fool would discount all knowledge gained outside that thousands-of-years-old font of wisdom.

 

[Gem]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gem
Bully,

Why are civil unions alright for two people, but not three?

I think they SHOULD be alright for three, so long as *all* persons know/consent.

Why should the government limit such relationships?

A

Civil Liberty:

Thanks for your honesty. So if they should approve three...why not four? Five? Six? Do you think the government should limit civil unions at all? Can a whole town decide that it is better that they ALL should receive the benefits of being civilly joined set forth in government regulations?

 

[CivilLiberty]

Civil Liberty:

Thanks for your honesty. So if they should approve three...why not four? Five? Six? Do you think the government should limit civil unions at all? Can a whole town decide that it is better that they ALL should receive the benefits of being civilly joined set forth in government regulations?

That depends on what you mean by "benefits".

Rights under law? Yes. What other "benefits" do you mean?

A

 

[Gem]

Should a civil union of 15 all be granted health benefits? How, if a company grants benefits to a civilly joined couple, will they have a way to refuse benefits for 15?

Will the government be ok with granting a tax break to a family of 12 with 24 kids amongst them?

Will the hospital be ok with allowing the 4th "mother" in a family of 8 women make medical decisions for the sick child of the 7th mother and the husband? How will that be kept track of?

How will "divorces" and new civil unions occur between people who are "joined" two or three times already?

Presently, you are not permitted to marry someone in order to get them a greencard. Will there be any rules and regulations in place, under your proposed "anything goes" system, to stop people from becoming "civilly joined for similar reasons? While such things occur rarely in the present system...surely removing any hinderances will exacerbate any problem that already exists.

If I am civilly joined to a man, and we have a child together...and then we civilly join two other women...and while things are going well we all share custody of the three children we all end up having...what happens when one woman wants to "divorce" the happy little family and take her child with her...but the rest of the family wants to keep the child...who was raised with me and the other woman as much of a mother as the biological mother.....and the biological mother, of course, being just one person...wont be able to provide economically as well as the big family can...where does the child belong?

Before you answer that...consider that by allowing same sex civil unions you have already put into place a situation in which families can be created where NO parent is the biological parent....or perhaps one is but the other isn't...but the non-biological parent is considered as much a parent as the biological one.


I can continue, Civil...but as I stated earlier...I do not think that the people who are pushing for gay marriage have been willing to sit down and hammer out what changes such a decision might bring to our society...both good and bad...what altering our present system might do to how the country works...how the systems that revolve around marriage, parenting, childhood, education, might be altered by this decision.

My concerns about gay marriage have nothing at all to do with a like or dislike of homosexuality at all...but rather concern about making a decision regarding such a large part of our society in an environment in which anyone who raises objections is considered a homophobic bigot...and anyone who wants to rush right into changing things forever is considered an open-minded intellectual.

 

[CivilLiberty]

Should a civil union of 15 all be granted health benefits? How, if a company grants benefits to a civilly joined couple, will they have a way to refuse benefits for 15?

Of course they can - an employer does not *have* to give you ANY benefits NOW at all. It's a "part of the package" that your employer negotiates with his employees, and of course there could be limits, or additional burden on the insured (i.e. greater or 100% co pay for additional dependents). That's easy.

Will the government be ok with granting a tax break to a family of 12 with 24 kids amongst them?

Why not? They're okay with giving deductions for 24 kids from TWO parents. The deduction is NOT a tax "break" it's an allowance for EACH and every dependent. Nothing would change here.That's easy.

Will the hospital be ok with allowing the 4th "mother" in a family of 8 women make medical decisions for the sick child of the 7th mother and the husband? How will that be kept track of?

Only slightly more complex. the keeping track is easy, and very easily spelled out in the civil union contract.

How will "divorces" and new civil unions occur between people who are "joined" two or three times already?

No fault divorce laws will function much the same. If you mean liability for alimony, this would be a case by case basis as it generally is now.

And just because this one issue is slightly more complicated is not a valid reason to prohibit it.

Presently, you are not permitted to marry someone in order to get them a greencard. Will there be any rules and regulations in place, under your proposed "anything goes" system, to stop people from becoming "civilly joined for similar reasons? While such things occur rarely in the present system...surely removing any hinderances will exacerbate any problem that already exists.

I don't think it will change that situation at all, and again, is not a valid reason to prohibit it - that is a separate issue.

If I am civilly joined to a man, and we have a child together...and then we civilly join two other women...and while things are going well we all share custody of the three children we all end up having...what happens when one woman wants to "divorce" the happy little family and take her child with her...but the rest of the family wants to keep the child...who was raised with me and the other woman as much of a mother as the biological mother.....and the biological mother, of course, being just one person...wont be able to provide economically as well as the big family can...where does the child belong?

Custody is always complicated, and it is not "more" complicated here in a way that I see.

Before you answer that...consider that by allowing same sex civil unions you have already put into place a situation in which families can be created where NO parent is the biological parent....or perhaps one is but the other isn't...but the non-biological parent is considered as much a parent as the biological one.

Separate issue, and as it is today, it depends on who is "adopting" the child and assuming rights.

I can continue, Civil...but as I stated earlier...I do not think that the people who are pushing for gay marriage have been willing to sit down and hammer out what changes such a decision might bring to our society...both good and bad...what altering our present system might do to how the country works...how the systems that revolve around marriage, parenting, childhood, education, might be altered by this decision.

My concerns about gay marriage have nothing at all to do with a like or dislike of homosexuality at all...but rather concern about making a decision regarding such a large part of our society in an environment in which anyone who raises objections is considered a homophobic bigot...and anyone who wants to rush right into changing things forever is considered an open-minded intellectual.

Human societies are not static systems. They grow and change as a living organism. What part of same sex civil unions troubles you? How do you consider it a change that will somehow damage our "systems"?


Andy

 

[Johnney]

I think they SHOULD be alright for three, so long as *all* persons know/consent.

Why should the government limit such relationships?

A

well holy shit batman, words of wonder from the caped queer!
now does this crap flow for plain jane hetro's too? can i have 3 wives, of can a woman have 3 husbands?

 

[Johnney]

Of course they can - an employer does not *have* to give you ANY benefits NOW at all. It's a "part of the package" that your employer negotiates with his employees, and of course there could be limits, or additional burden on the insured (i.e. greater or 100% co pay for additional dependents). That's easy.



Why not? They're okay with giving deductions for 24 kids from TWO parents. The deduction is NOT a tax "break" it's an allowance for EACH and every dependent. Nothing would change here.That's easy.



Only slightly more complex. the keeping track is easy, and very easily spelled out in the civil union contract.



No fault divorce laws will function much the same. If you mean liability for alimony, this would be a case by case basis as it generally is now.

And just because this one issue is slightly more complicated is not a valid reason to prohibit it.



I don't think it will change that situation at all, and again, is not a valid reason to prohibit it - that is a separate issue.




Custody is always complicated, and it is not "more" complicated here in a way that I see.



Separate issue, and as it is today, it depends on who is "adopting" the child and assuming rights.





Human societies are not static systems. They grow and change as a living organism. What part of same sex civil unions troubles you? How do you consider it a change that will somehow damage our "systems"?


Andy

thats got to be the biggest crock of shit ive read yet. hey jim jones, why dont you go make some kool-aide