My take on the recent gay marriage bill in New York

[Magmorph]

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.

Marriage doesn't have to be religious at all. The term should just be separated from religion.

 

[The Catboy]

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.

Again, I am not going to take either side, but you don't need to church for a marriage, you just need a Justice of the Peace. Pretty much if someone has a licence to marry people, then the marriage is valid. That person is the middle man between the state and the people marrying. Most of the time it is the church who is the middle man, but there are ways around that.

 

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

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

Conditionally, I agree. But we must be clear that the "state" we're talking about is not the one we're living under right now. They are too integrated into the prejudices of the Church and the bourgeoisie. It is my opinion that the state itself must be smashed and taken control of by the working class.

@Magmorph & CatBoy: Certainly, marriage does not have to be religious. But religious marriage in the US has been keeping most of the social benefits for itself, and I do not believe it has the right to do so. I don't know much about gay marriage in Massachusetts, so I will take your word for it. What I am talking about is the inadequacies of the recent bill that was passed in New York state, and that state marriages are not created as equal as religious marriages. The term is "separate but equal" (which is a farce, of course). And this is a big problem if New York state allows organized religion to deny gays marriage in churches that confer tax breaks and the transcendence of state borders.

 

[ShadowSoldier]

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.

Marriage doesn't have to be religious at all. The term should just be separated from religion.

This. I don't even think Marriage these days, means the same to people as it did years ago. Now it's just basically sealing the deal, signing the contract and wanting to stick with that person forever. Hence why so many marriages are not done with a Priest/Pastor or in a church or anything.

 

[Magmorph]

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.

Their religion could also allow gay marriage. There is no reason to enforce something just because a particular religion doesn't agree with it.

 

[Sterling]

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

Conditionally, I agree. But we must be clear that the "state" we're talking about is not the one we're living under right now. They are too integrated into the prejudices of the Church and the bourgeoisie. It is my opinion that the state itself must be smashed and taken control of by the working class.

Change does need to happen, but what you speak of is not what should. The beliefs that this country stands for are not long gone. They just need a lot of tweaking and some separating. You must not also forget that the roots this country was found on are indeed religious roots. Just saying the reason it's like this todays.

 

[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.

Their religion could also allow gay marriage. There is no reason to enforce something just because a particular religion doesn't agree with it.

Whose religion?

 

[lex luthor]

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.

Common sense is that if they are against gays = they are against gay marriage.
As for Church in States affairs it's been always this way. Someone unaware of this is an ignorant. It's like an agreement between Church and Government. This their business.

 

[The Catboy]

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.

Their religion could also allow gay marriage. There is no reason to enforce something just because a particular religion doesn't agree with it.

Whose religion?

Actually there are several Churches now allowing homosexuals to not all be part of the church, but also marry in the church.

 

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

You must not also forget that the roots this country was found on are indeed religious roots.
I disagree. As far as I remember, the United States was founded as a secular nation, utilizing the progressive ideals developed in the Enlightenment. Thus the specific note in the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli
QUOTEAs the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

I'm sorry to use Wikipedia as a reference, but I think it is pretty clear. Not to mention that the Jefferson's letter on the "wall of separation between church and state" has been frequently used by the American courts. The text of the first amendment could also serve as a reference to illustrate this fact.

 

[Magmorph]

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.

Canada arguably has less separation of Church and state than we do in the US. Why do you believe that there can be no compromise?

 

[VashTS]

@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.

so then how do we reproduce? i think that is a scientific basis. i've always thought sexual activity and gay are two different things. having sex with men doesn't mean you are gay. i think of gay people as men being attracted to men. for example, a guy walking through a mall, seeing another guy, and thinking that guy is cute. i don't see the appeal of men so i really don't know, i also don't talk with the gay people i work with about it because i feel like they would get defensive or offended about it.

all i'm trying to say is when you are called a name, and you are comfortable with what you are being called there is no need to retaliate in any manner. just like to me a [censored] is not a black person. its quite simply a [censored], some piece of shit person, can be black, white, mexican, hell even a video game can be a [censored] lol. i know the word is offensive to black people, but i've never had any types of hatred toward different groups whether its racial, sexual, or social class. i hate everyone equally. i hate people as a whole. i would not be offended by anyones opinion and thank you for being honest.

as for reports of animals being gay, i don't think thats the case (based on what i consider to be "gay"). i'm pretty sure all animals are genetically engineered to continue their species.

as for something on topic, i'm all for gay marriage, you guys should suffer just the same as heteros! you think its a leap forward, but its REALLY a step back. welcome to a world of having financial responsibility and government cutbacks bitches!

edit: damn i didn't know gbatemp censors! those were the n-word

 

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

so then how do we reproduce? i think that is a scientific basis. i've always thought sexual activity and gay are two different things. having sex with men doesn't mean you are gay. i think of gay people as men being attracted to men. for example, a guy walking through a mall, seeing another guy, and thinking that guy is cute. i don't see the appeal of men so i really don't know, i also don't talk with the gay people i work with about it because i feel like they would get defensive or offended about it.
By and large animals do go into heat for the purposes of reproduction. Heterosexual activity leads to reproduction, but that does not necessarily mean that the entire species in question has to be heterosexual in order to survive; Darwin's observation of "The Origin of Species" is hardly contradicted by homosexual activity in the animal kingdom. Your proposition that heterosexual activity and being "gay" sexual activity are different also has no scientific basis. Humans have the ability to have sex in a variety of ways, utilizing different orifices, locations, and do not go into heat as other animals do; humans largely have sex for pleasure. To sum up: The lack of the ability of reproduction does not mean that gays and lesbians do not engage in sexual activity or sex.

all i'm trying to say is when you are called a name, and you are comfortable with what you are being called there is no need to retaliate in any manner. just like to me a [censored] is not a black person. its quite simply a [censored], some piece of shit person, can be black, white, mexican, hell even a video game can be a [censored] lol. i know the word is offensive to black people, but i've never had any types of hatred toward different groups whether its racial, sexual, or social class. i hate everyone equally. i hate people as a whole. i would not be offended by anyones opinion and thank you for being honest.
At the risk of getting off topic, I will say this much, and I will be censoring myself. You are using that word in the same way that my own father uses it. He tries to selectively use the word [censored] for people who do not stand on the same political line or opinion as he does. He sees no contradiction in this, nor does he consider himself to be racist in doing it. Please keep this in mind: The general use of racial stereotypes is rooted in history as a weapon of poverty, societal indifference, distortion of class consciousness, and state corruption. It is an aspect of racism. Due to the fact that racism has been continually exploited in the US for reactionary purposes, it cannot have a separate context apart from that history. You may not be racist yourself in saying these things, and I do believe you when you say that you are not racist. But, in effect, by engaging with racist stereotypes in this way, you are practicing racism. This the last I will say about it. Please do not try get off-topic again.

as for reports of animals being gay, i don't think thats the case (based on what i consider to be "gay"). i'm pretty sure all animals are genetically engineered to continue their species.

Unfortunately, what you consider to be gay is not particularly convincing, nor does it have any scientific basis. As for animals being gay, you may consider these entries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anima...sexual_behavior
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals
QUOTE(VashTS @ Jun 26 2011, 01:44 AM)

as for something on topic, i'm all for gay marriage, you guys should suffer just the same as heteros! you think its a leap forward, but its REALLY a step back. welcome to a world of having financial responsibility and government cutbacks bitches!

Your enthusiasm is noted. But with support like yours, I'd rather be backed by Pat Robertson.

@VashTS (post below my own): Um...okay. You didn't actually prove anything except your ignorance on social matters.

 

[VashTS]

just wanted my point proven twice

thanks for the discussion man.

 

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

It just occurred to me that I made an error in some of my logic up until this point. It was wrong for me to counterpoise "state marriages" to "religious marriages". State (or secular) marriages for heterosexuals, from what I've read, actually confer all of the social benefits to the couple. Religious marriage does not seem to uniquely enjoy these benefits, but that doesn't mean a monopoly of sorts has not been allowed. The US state, aided by the religious right, has denied the gays this right with the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act signed by Clinton. This law prevents, at a federal level, homosexual couples from being recognized by the government, thus explaining why they are denied the approximately 1,100 benefits entailed in marriage. My position on organized religion capitulating to the gays, however, is unchanged. The Defense of Marriage act can be be nearly considered a religious law, because it still allows the churches to claim the mantle of true and preserved marriage, while the US state just looks the other way and sticks their fingers in their ears in regards to state marriage. Civil unions are a step below state-sanctioned marriage, since at the outset they can only transcend the borders of five or six other states. They are a second-class solution, and worthless. The state and organized religion must surrender to the gays.

 

[retKHAAAN]

[youtube]CLEtGRUrtJo[/youtube]

IMO, a piece of paper means nothing. If people are that concerned about sharing insurance or joint tax returns than they should really question why they're together in the first place.

 

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

@Old8oy: In a society where people need every economic advantage they can salvage in order to survive and have a decent standard of living, it is entirely appropriate to worry about such things. While I believe that human love should be based on an enjoyment of each other and not their money, American capitalism has different plans.

Edit: I've been doing too much reading and typing. I'm taking a day-long break....
Edit II: Maybe longer.

 

[DeathStrudel]

IMO, a piece of paper means nothing. If people are that concerned about sharing insurance or joint tax returns than they should really question why they're together in the first place.

I kinda agree with you, but I don't think you realize that there are reasons for homosexuals to want the right to get married other than sharing insurance, joint tax returns, or other financial benefits.

 

[retKHAAAN]

I'd be with my wife forever regardless of whether or not we were married. We only got married so she could get on my health insurance. Now, looking back, we both realize that she would have been better off on Medicaid as it covers a lot more than my plan...especially after the birth of my son. We live comfortably on $50,000 a year combined but could even more so if we weren't paying $200 a month for her and my son towards health insurance... But, I'm not one to "take advantage of the system" so we're not looking at divorce any time soon

I think people just need to pay more attention to what they do with their money and not rely so much on the government to provide them with "rights". There's an upside and a downside to marriage.

I kinda agree with you, but I don't think you realize that there are reasons for homosexuals to want the right to get married other than sharing insurance, joint tax returns, or other financial benefits.

I really don't know why I posted in this topic to begin with

But could you share these reasons? It's not at all that I'm looking to flame or troll or anything, it would just make more sense in the discussion if you were specific

 

[dickfour]

With all the problem that New York faces this is what the legislator chooses to address. The state faces 8% unemployment, and a 17 billion dollar budget deficit. So many people and businesses have been fleeing the state's high taxes and burdensome regulations that the state has lost two Congressional seats dealing it's political clout a huge blow. It seems to me that the law makers are happy to let the state go to hell buy running away from the tough decisions they have to make in favor of pandering to specific groups in order to hold on to power. That's how the game is played. Watch New York politicians write more laws to other special interest groups such as unions before the 2012 elections. Screw serving the people if you have enough special interests groups you can win elections. Meanwhile people will continue to flee the state in favor of better run states like Texas that created half of all the jobs created in America last year. I'm not against gay marriage but come on do your job. There are far more important things to take care of. I'm sure if you're unemployed or loosing your house you don't give a damn about gay marriage.