My take on the recent gay marriage bill in New York

[Deleted User]

Mine does...

Your ignorance is painful. Each one of your arguments are the same uneducated crap that is pumped out all the time.
Quite honestly if gay marriage is going to destroy the foundation of family and marriage, then why do countries that legalize it doing so well with no problems in the "foundation of marriage and families."
I want real proof behind these arguments. Give some hardcore facts.

Human Preservation.

This is one of the worsts arguments ever, even worse than 'a man marrying his dog' (which was absolute nonsense to begin with). Why exactly would allowing gay couples to marry interfere with human preservation? I mean, it's not like everyone will become gay only because it's legal to marry. If you're gay, you're gay, no matter what. I really don't see a problem here.

 

[The Catboy]

My personal take is really. I just wish the US would get over this already and just legalize it. There is no logical reason that a country that claims not only to be free, but also separated from the church, that this shouldn't even be a problem.
As well I really don't see the need to force the churches to accept this. If the churches don't want to have it, then they don't need to have it in their church, but please stay our of the state. If the state isn't forcing it on the churches, the churches shouldn't force their views on the state, plain and simple.

 

[lex luthor]

Mine does...

Your ignorance is painful. Each one of your arguments are the same uneducated crap that is pumped out all the time.
Quite honestly if gay marriage is going to destroy the foundation of family and marriage, then why do countries that legalize it doing so well with no problems in the "foundation of marriage and families."
I want real proof behind these arguments. Give some hardcore facts.

Human Preservation.

This is one of the worsts arguments ever, even worse than 'a man marrying his dog' (which was absolute nonsense to begin with). Why exactly would allowing gay couples to marry interfere with human preservation? I mean, it's not like everyone will become gay only because it's legal to marry. If you're gay, you're gay, no matter what. I really don't see a problem here.

No, it isn't nonsense as you may think...

 

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

My personal take as well is really. I just wish the US would get over this already and just legalize it. There is no logical reason that a country that claims not only to be free, but also separated from the church, that this shouldn't even be a problem.
As well I really don't see the need to force the churches to accept this. If the churches don't want to have it, then they don't need to have it in their church, but please stay our of the state. If the state isn't forcing it on the churches, the churches shouldn't force their views on the state, plain and simple.

I understand your frustration, and I agree with most of it. Unfortunately this recent bill shows that the religious institutions are indeed "forcing" themselves on the state. If they bring the issue of social inequality with religious marriages into court and win, the bill will be voided. I'm willing to bet that the four Republicans would not have even joined the (narrow) majority if this clause was not added.

 

[The Catboy]

No, it isn't nonsense as you may think...

Yeah totally a great come back. You are running on baseless arguments and trying to pass them off as fact, then blindly throw Bible quotes around without once following the rest of the Bible.

@MEGAMANTROTSKY
Sadly I know this fact and really I just don't get this. This bill isn't forcing them to change nor even forcing them to allow gay marriage in their churches, so why get all up in arms about it? Are they really that insecure?

 

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

Sadly I know this fact and really I just don't get this. This bill isn't forcing them to change nor even forcing them to allow gay marriage in their churches, so why get all up in arms about it? Are they really that insecure?
The best answer I can provide is actually something another person said in this commentary on the priest abuse scandal: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/mar2002/chur-m29.shtml
QUOTE....like any reactionary bureaucracy, especially one with such a vast breadth of experience, the Catholic officialdom instinctively recognizes that every outmoded institution is most vulnerable at the moment it attempts to reform itself. After vigorously preserving priestly celibacy for centuries, for the Church to abandon it might provoke an uncontrollable crisis. It would not satisfy genuinely reform-minded critics, and it would infuriate and embitter conservative elements. Far better to ignore the realities of modern life, place priests in an impossible position and endanger children and adolescents, Church officials calculate, than see the possible unraveling of the entire institution.

I think it's safe to say that the same could be said, with some obvious modifications, of their opposition to the equality of gay marriage.

 

[VashTS]

here is my one argument: why do gay people have to come up with reasons to fight for this right? if it truly is normal and the right way to be, there would be no reason. i have never had to defend my reason why I'm heterosexual. nor would i be defensive if someone said being hetero is wrong or bad or against their religion or whatever.

i am ok with people doing what you want, i am a strong believer in free will and rights for everyone, i don't look badly upon people who are gay. but i make a comment, like, damn that dude is a fruit or something else in good natured ribbing, and a gay person gets all bent out shape if they hear it, then something is obviously wrong, and they feel something is wrong.

if someone sees me with my wife and says damn that guy really loves his woman. there would be no feelings of hatred or retaliation needed from me. i would be like damn right and move along. gay people fight back, and there is a reason behind that...

this also applies to race as well. i have black friends, if they are dark skinned and i said hey man you are black as hell. they would not be offended. but call a gay person a fag, and all hell breaks loose.

just my two cents. sorry if its a bit off topic. there is something deeply rooted in gay peoples minds that cause this. i think its because its going against what nature wired you for. before the flames, read my earlier statement. i am happy for you if you choose to be gay. i stand proud for human rights. but i do not believe in homosexuality. never have never will.

 

[RoMee]

here is my one argument: why do gay people have to come up with reasons to fight for this right? if it truly is normal and the right way to be, there would be no reason. i have never had to defend my reason why I'm heterosexual.

how about I tell you being heterosexual is wrong, and my god demands you be cure of it.
would you fight then??

 

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

@VashTS: I appreciate your honesty, and you have every right to be entitled to your opinion regarding gays and nature. But please do not be offended when I say that I do not think much of it.

The proposition that nature has always had heterosexuality in mind has no scientific basis. There are a plethora of reports of all kinds of sexual activity in the animal kingdom. This is not to mention that homosexuality has been with us quite a long time (at least since the time of ancient Greece).

Spoiler

As for your beef with identity politics, I would say more, but I would risk falling off-topic.

 

[stinkoman]

Mine does...

Your ignorance is painful. Each one of your arguments are the same uneducated crap that is pumped out all the time.
Quite honestly if gay marriage is going to destroy the foundation of family and marriage, then why do countries that legalize it doing so well with no problems in the "foundation of marriage and families."
I want real proof behind these arguments. Give some hardcore facts.

Human Preservation.

This is one of the worsts arguments ever, even worse than 'a man marrying his dog' (which was absolute nonsense to begin with). Why exactly would allowing gay couples to marry interfere with human preservation? I mean, it's not like everyone will become gay only because it's legal to marry. If you're gay, you're gay, no matter what. I really don't see a problem here.

No, it isn't nonsense as you may think...

Isn't a good portion of the bible about placing humanity over animals?

 

[ShadowSoldier]

here is my one argument: why do gay people have to come up with reasons to fight for this right? if it truly is normal and the right way to be, there would be no reason. i have never had to defend my reason why I'm heterosexual. nor would i be defensive if someone said being hetero is wrong or bad or against their religion or whatever.

Because in today's society, being hetero is still the norm.

You're asking why gay's have to come up with reasons.
Why did black people have to fight for so long? Because they wanted equal rights as the white man.

The people of the LGBT community have to fight just like Black people did, to show that they are human. They eat, they sleep, they work, they breathe, they bleed, at the end of the day they lose their dignity when they use toilet just like everybody else. The only difference is their choices (yes I know being gay is still up for debate, but to make things simple here I'm just going to use the word choice. So please, don't lecture me) are still considered wrong. They're basically fighting every single person to show that they too have feelings and deserve to have every right like a straight person has.

 

[Magmorph]

here is my one argument: why do gay people have to come up with reasons to fight for this right? if it truly is normal and the right way to be, there would be no reason. i have never had to defend my reason why I'm heterosexual. nor would i be defensive if someone said being hetero is wrong or bad or against their religion or whatever.

i am ok with people doing what you want, i am a strong believer in free will and rights for everyone, i don't look badly upon people who are gay. but i make a comment, like, damn that dude is a fruit or something else in good natured ribbing, and a gay person gets all bent out shape if they hear it, then something is obviously wrong, and they feel something is wrong.

if someone sees me with my wife and says damn that guy really loves his woman. there would be no feelings of hatred or retaliation needed from me. i would be like damn right and move along. gay people fight back, and there is a reason behind that...

this also applies to race as well. i have black friends, if they are dark skinned and i said hey man you are black as hell. they would not be offended. but call a gay person a fag, and all hell breaks loose.

just my two cents. sorry if its a bit off topic. there is something deeply rooted in gay peoples minds that cause this. i think its because its going against what nature wired you for. before the flames, read my earlier statement. i am happy for you if you choose to be gay. i stand proud for human rights. but i do not believe in homosexuality. never have never will.

People have a tendency to want to have equal rights. If they do not have equal rights then they will fight to obtain them. You are trying to argue that because someone gets offended by you calling them derogatory terms that they must have problems.

 

[Sterling]

I see no one took the time to reply to my post. Until the standard changes the current separation of Church and State. There will be no compromise. Until our society experiences an epiphany of such magnitude as the civil rights movement, there will be no compromise.

 

[The Catboy]

I was about to say something about VashTS's comment, but it appears more people beat me to it.
Really we need to defend and fight for our rights for the same reason everyone in the past has done. If we don't do it, then we don't get the rights.
Although I do find it very sad that it's come down to this fact, but people in this country don't have the rights they deserve and that really needs to stop.

 

[KingdomBlade]

this also applies to race as well. i have black friends, if they are dark skinned and i said hey man you are black as hell. they would not be offended. but call a gay person a fag, and all hell breaks loose.

If you go back to the 1960s or 1980s or something and call a black person a n**ga, you'll get some hate.

It's almost based on periods, a few decades ago, racism was rampant and blacks were horribly offended by it in the past, but it's lightened down a bit. Now, it's sexism that's the issue. Give it a few more years or a decade, it'll even out once homosexuality becomes more accepted as normal.

Gay marriage, go ahead. I love everyone (not really) and believe everyone should be able to endure the difficulty of being in a marriage. I just agree with what's generally been established in this thread. Make it legal in the state, just don't ask the church agree with it. Easy peasy.

I'm just sad about the fact that tons of countries have already legalized it but the Philippines still worries about condoms, abortion and birth control, even with the huge number of LGBT people here, and our problem of overpopulation. Bah. Catholic church controls our government's decisions which is why they're frequently the wrong ones in terms of practicality.

 

[Magmorph]

I see no one took the time to reply to my post. Until the standard changes the current separation of Church and State. There will be no compromise. Until our society experiences and epiphany of such magnitude as the civil rights movement, there will be no compromise.

The Church is often forced to change as our culture evolves. The proposition that the earth orbits around the sun was fought by the Church at one time.

 

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

Make it legal in the state, just don't ask the church agree with it. Easy peasy.

I cannot agree with you here. The churches must be forced to give up their monopoly on the social benefits that remain exclusive to religious heterosexual marriage. As I have said before, civil unions are a second-class excuse for marriage. They are nearly worthless. Allowing the religious groups to dictate the terms of the state law in New York is one of the reasons it is inadequate.

@Sterling: Naturally, I agree with your point, and I'm sorry I didn't reply sooner. "Change" can only be brought by social upheaval, and smashing the Catholic Church must be part of that upheaval. I will be so bold as to recommend that the "epiphany" you speak of can only be brought about by proletarian revolution.

 

[godreborn]

I don't recall one passage from the bible dealing with gay marriage. no government or religion should have the right to tell people how to live or what is acceptable. it's not surprising that the number of christians, catholics, etc has dropped significantly over the past three decades. their rules and views r so antiquated. if they refuse to change with the times, religion may find itself obsolete sooner rather than later.

 

[Sterling]

Make it legal in the state, just don't ask the church agree with it. Easy peasy.

I cannot agree with you here. The churches must be forced to give up their monopoly on the social benefits that remain exclusive to religious heterosexual marriage. As I have said before, civil unions are a second-class excuse for marriage. They are nearly worthless. Allowing the religious groups to dictate the terms of the state law in New York is one of the reasons it is inadequate.

Like I said. Until Marriage is completely run by the State, there will be no compromise.

 

[Mangofett]

I don't like the fact that religious groups are trying to use the excuse "that it devalues the essence of marriage (holy matrimony)"

It's really their only valid excuse too. Ideally, I don't think gay marriage should be allowed (as a preservation of culture), BUT I do believe civil unions should have the same exact benefits as marriages. In fact, I think civil unions should be set as the de jure standard for a union between two people, and marriage should be left to a man and a woman marrying as per their religion, in a religious setting.

But of course, the Church will never let civil union equality happen, and so they deserve whatever happens to marriage. Harsh, but there is no other choice if we are to make as many people happy as possible.

EDIT: Well, looks like megamantrotsky already brought up the point about the civil union-church relationship...