New York Appeals Court Won't Allow Gay Marriage

[Navy Pride]

Please show me where I attacked anyone personally? Telling the truth is not a personal attack. Yes Navy the truth does hurt sometimes, doesn't it?

Reread my last post and you will see that I was speaking about ANYONE who is against Gays getting married, not just you. If you're feeling guilty that you discriminate against your fellow Americans then maybe you need to reconsider your position because the position that Gays do not deserve the same rights as Heteros is discrimination pure and simple.

You cannot prevent people from their civil rights without discriminating against them.

So show me where I attacked anyone personally, will you?

Do you even read what we post? I have said in this thread at least 3 times that I am for equal rights for all Americans and I believe that can be done for Gays via Civil Unions............Marriage is not a right..........Its a privilege......What part of that do you not understand?

 

[26 X World Champs]

Do you even read what we post? I have said in this thread at least 3 times that I am for equal rights for all Americans and I believe that can be done for Gays via Civil Unions............Marriage is not a right..........Its a privilege......What part of that do you not understand?

Marriage is not a right or a privilige it's a law that should not discriminate against someone because they're Gay, period. You cannot be for equal rights if you support "Separate but Equal" because that is ILLEGAL according to the Supreme Court.

To suggest it's a privilige to get married is absurd and if that is the basis of your argument then you're flat out wrong. Once someone is an adult they have the legal right to get married. If you are against people getting married you are discriminating against those people and those people are being prevented from enjoying the same rights that you have...is that too deep for you Navy?

How they have sex, who they have sex with, when they have sex should have nothing to do with getting married! Let me throw an example to you? There are lots of married couples who live in "open" marriages, they have sex with multiple partners all the time. They might even be bi-sexual regularly or occassionally. Does this mean that they too are not worthy of being married in the way you define it because doesn't "open marriages" threaten the sanctity of marriage?

You just can't have it both ways and choose whom you will discriminate against and that is exactly what people who want to prevent Gays from marrying do.

You can try to convince yourself how pro equal rights you are by supporting Civil Unions but Separate but Equal is not equal rights, just ask The Supremes....

 

[Navy Pride]

Marriage is not a right or a privilige it's a law that should not discriminate against someone because they're Gay, period. You cannot be for equal rights if you support "Separate but Equal" because that is ILLEGAL according to the Supreme Court.

To suggest it's a privilige to get married is absurd and if that is the basis of your argument then you're flat out wrong. Once someone is an adult they have the legal right to get married. If you are against people getting married you are discriminating against those people and those people are being prevented from enjoying the same rights that you have...is that too deep for you Navy?

How they have sex, who they have sex with, when they have sex should have nothing to do with getting married! Let me throw an example to you? There are lots of married couples who live in "open" marriages, they have sex with multiple partners all the time. They might even be bi-sexual regularly or occassionally. Does this mean that they too are not worthy of being married in the way you define it because doesn't "open marriages" threaten the sanctity of marriage?

You just can't have it both ways and choose whom you will discriminate against and that is exactly what people who want to prevent Gays from marrying do.

You can try to convince yourself how pro equal rights you are by supporting Civil Unions but Separate but Equal is not equal rights, just ask The Supremes....

Marriage is not a right..........You have to get a license from the state to get married.....In that manner you have to get permission..........

 

[Stinger]

I supported my differing opinion with reliable evidence.

Good for you, and nothing I stated is irrational.

 

[Alex]

Good for you, and nothing I stated is irrational.

You are going ot ignore the rest of the post? Typical.

 

[RightinNYC]

The truth is that you, Navy Pride are PRO-DISCRIMINATION when it comes to Gay rights. I find it repulsive that anyone would be OK with preventing other Americans from excercising their civil rights and that is exactly what you do Navy Pride.

I know trying to explain this concept is a losing battle, but no fundamental rights are being violated in states that are not allowing gay marriage. That simple.

 

[Stinger]

You are going ot ignore the rest of the post? Typical.

I know what your opinion is, it was not ignored. My point remains there are rational reasons why some people oppose gay marriage. I know your believe that if I believe that it is best for babies to have a Mom and Dad that that is just unreasonable. I think I'll let you stand on that. I think it clearly shows how unreasonable your premises must be to come to your conclusions.

 

[26 X World Champs]

I know trying to explain this concept is a losing battle, but no fundamental rights are being violated in states that are not allowing gay marriage. That simple.

I respectfully disagree. Just because there are State laws not permitting something doesn't mean that it is Constitutional. If equal rights means what I think it means then depriving someone of their right to marry simply due to their choice of partners is discriminating and is a violation of equal rights.

 

[Alex]

I know what your opinion is, it was not ignored. My point remains there are rational reasons why some people oppose gay marriage. I know your believe that if I believe that it is best for babies to have a Mom and Dad that that is just unreasonable. I think I'll let you stand on that. I think it clearly shows how unreasonable your premises must be to come to your conclusions.

"how unreasonable your premises must be to come to your conclusions"

??????????????????

Are you serious with this?

I am the only one who has shown reliable evidence for my conclusions. The premise is the American Psychiatric Association and my conclusion being that children are no different being raised in gay homes than in straight ones. Your premises are all in your own imagination.

I displayed hard facts to backup my claims, try to do the same.

Go back to the previous post and read the definition of "irrational".

 

[26 X World Champs]

I know what your opinion is, it was not ignored. My point remains there are rational reasons why some people oppose gay marriage. I know your believe that if I believe that it is best for babies to have a Mom and Dad that that is just unreasonable. I think I'll let you stand on that. I think it clearly shows how unreasonable your premises must be to come to your conclusions.

So the fact that your stance is discriminating against someone for being Gay is moot to you? You're willing to accept discrimination, is that it? You're PRO DENIAL OF EQUAL RIGHTS to someone because they have sex with someone of their own sex?

That is being PREJUDICIAL IMHO and I find it reprehensible.

 

[RightinNYC]

I respectfully disagree. Just because there are State laws not permitting something doesn't mean that it is Constitutional. If equal rights means what I think it means then depriving someone of their right to marry simply due to their choice of partners is discriminating and is a violation of equal rights.

I'm not referring to state laws that are banning it, I'm saying that in states like NY where it isnt permitted but isnt explicitly banned, there is no grounds for overturning the state constitution. It is not a fundamental right warranting strict scrutiny (if SS is even to be used).

 

[Stinger]

So the fact that your stance is discriminating against someone for being Gay is moot to you? You're willing to accept discrimination, is that it? You're PRO DENIAL OF EQUAL RIGHTS to someone because they have sex with someone of their own sex?

That is being PREJUDICIAL IMHO and I find it reprehensible.

EVERYONE in this country has the same legal ability to marry someone of the opposite sex. There is no discrimination so your point is specious. And there is no "right" to marry, you must get a license to be legally married.

 

[Stinger]

"how unreasonable your premises must be to come to your conclusions"

??????????????????

Are you serious with this?

I am the only one who has shown ...........

And I can show all sorts of other things, but the fact is YOU are the one saying that the premise that children are better served and in fact deserve a Mommy AND a Daddy is the "unreasonable" position. That is absurd. And I am more than happy to watch you here stand on that position because it proves how absurd the premises of your side really are.

Which is not necessary the Mommy or the Daddy?

 

[Alex]

And I can show all sorts of other things, but the fact is YOU are the one saying that the premise that children are better served and in fact deserve a Mommy AND a Daddy is the "unreasonable" position. That is absurd. And I am more than happy to watch you here stand on that position because it proves how absurd the premises of your side really are.

Which is not necessary the Mommy or the Daddy?

I never said "unreasonable" in my posts, which you put into quotes as if I wrote it (first debate mistake). I said "irrational" which I have shown to be true. The fact is that I have provided reliable evidence to back up my conclusion. You are very confused about "premises" and "conclusions" (second mistake).

You have a bad habit of leaving important parts of people's posts out when you respond, Stinger. The post that you responded to for this had much more to it and you only used so much of it and inserted "..." (third mistake, you're out).

 

[Ivan The Terrible]

Alex,

So waht are you saying?

 

[Navy Pride]

EVERYONE in this country has the same legal ability to marry someone of the opposite sex. There is no discrimination so your point is specious. And there is no "right" to marry, you must get a license to be legally married.

Exactly as I have said many times and what "Feel Good" Liberals forget is marriage is a privilege not a right..........

 

[26 X World Champs]

EVERYONE in this country has the same legal ability to marry someone of the opposite sex. There is no discrimination so your point is specious. And there is no "right" to marry, you must get a license to be legally married.

Yet another smoke screen or excuse for not treating someone equally. You can deny to yourself over and over again that you're not practicing sexual preference bigotry but that in no way makes you correct.

From my point of view either everyone has the same right to choose their partner or it is unequal. Plus, at the end of the day why do you care if two me get married so that they qualify for the same benefits that marriage brings to heterosexual couples?

My favorite "excuse" is the sanctity of marriage bullshit as if marriage is so valued by our society!

I'm for everyone enjoying the same rights to choose who they want to marry without prejudice...some of you are pro-prejudice, pro-homosexual bigotry and that to me is grotseque and ignorant...

 

[26 X World Champs]

Exactly as I have said many times and what "Feel Good" Liberals forget is marriage is a privilege not a right..........

What's it Like Navy to be OK with discriminating against your neighbor? Feel good? How ungodly is it to disrespect your fellow man by denying them the same rights you enjoy? I think it's an example of pure evil.

 

[Captain America]

Some grumpy old farts are just having a bad time accepting the idea that in today's society being gay is no longer such a social stigma. They're pissed that Elvis is no longer King. They're mad that Japan makes cars and that people don't hate them like they oughta hate queers. They sit on their barstools down at the VFW and piss and moan about all these liberal hippy pinko fags acting like they're normal people and talk about the glory days and WWII (you know, the BIG one) as they guzzle more and more PBR beer into their disgusting beer-bellies. You know who they are. The fat disgruntled slob over there with the John Deere hat and suspenders.

Some others are pissed that a gay boy no longer has to join the priesthood to be accepted as honorable and because of this their "sacred" church is going down the shi**er. There are just not enough of shamed homos these days to wear the flowing robes and pretty hats. And many of the ones they do got is putting their church under because they can't keep their hands off the genitalia of the choir boys. Yeah, their PO'd.

The good news is that these old farts will most likely be dead before to long and then we can get on with progressing our nation to be the shining light of freedom it was meant to be.

 

[Stinger]

My favorite "excuse" is the sanctity of marriage bullshit as if marriage is so valued by our society!

It's not as you described and if you every learn that then your arguements might have some merit.

Once again we all are governed by the SAME law, we all can do the SAME thing, and that is marry someone of the opposite sex. If you don't want to do that and want to do something different go ahead, bugt soceity is not going to sanction it nor support it because it is in our better interest not to.

There are rational reasons for the government and society to support and sanction men and women marrying and until nature makes a BIG change in how we are designed and how we function that won't change. No one is preventing same sex people to do as they wish as far as each other, but when it comes to society and our progeny, society has a very BIG interest in how our society is structured and in maintaining traditional families.

 

[Stinger]

What's it Like Navy to be OK with discriminating against your neighbor? Feel good? How ungodly is it to disrespect your fellow man by denying them the same rights you enjoy? I think it's an example of pure evil.

There is no discrimination. Every man has the same privilage under the law as every other man, to marry a woman. If you or I choose something else, it won't be sanctioned by government.

How do I feel about not encouraging or supporting or sanctioning homosexual marriage. Good for society in the long run. How would I feel about it if we did, bad for society.

And if these are the only arguements you have to offer your case is very very weak, but then I doubt you will be convinced otherwise just like I won't be. The difference is I accept YOUR arguement as stated by you, on the other hand you try to create one for your opposition rather than listening to theirs.

 

[Stinger]

I never said "unreasonable" in my posts, which you put into quotes as if I wrote it (first debate mistake). I said "irrational" which I have shown to be true

Both terms have been used and so what and no you haven't. When you can show it is irrational to believe that children derserve both a Mommy and a Dadday, that one of the other is not important in a childs life let me know. I find YOUR position no only irrational but absurd.

. The fact is that I have provided reliable evidence to back up my conclusion. You are very confused about "premises" and "conclusions" (second mistake).

I can post Dr after Dr, Phd after Phd that agrees with me.

But I am more than happy to let you stand on the ground you have choose, that children having a Mommy and a Daddy is an irrational thought. What folly.

You have a bad habit of leaving important parts of people's posts out when you respond, Stinger.

I post what is needed to remind you of what we are talking about and certainly do not repeat the specious parts.

 

[26 X World Champs]

but soceity is not going to sanction it nor support it because it is in our better interest not to.

I am dying to know how two Gay people not getting married is in "society's best interest"? What, pray tell would happen if Gays got married?

I interpret your words to mean that somehow Gays getting married would create more Gay people, that there would be a Tsunami of Americans converting to being Gay? Sounds absurd don't you think? That is what I think a comment like "in our best interest" is, absurd.

No one is preventing same sex people to do as they wish as far as each other, but when it comes to society and our progeny, society has a very BIG interest in how our society is structured and in maintaining traditional families.

Once again how do you reconcile your "traditional families" fallacy argument against preventing a Gay couple from getting health care or any other of the more than 1000 civil rights they are being prevented from enjoying by discriminating against them because they are Gay?

 

[70s_guy]

Thread now up over page 20 and showing no sign of dying. Back from a week long trip and as I expected the forum's pro gay marriage members are still whining over this New York court decision vectoring off babbling about related topics A to Z like it knocked your court based monkeywrenching plans for a huge loop and disorientation has set in. I knew this New York decision was a big big big deal and am smiling to see it must be.

 

[RightinNYC]

I'm for everyone enjoying the same rights to choose who they want to marry without prejudice...some of you are pro-prejudice, pro-homosexual bigotry and that to me is grotseque and ignorant...

And you're in favor of allowing the judiciary to usurp the power of the legislature, thus destroying the entire premise of separation of powers that this nation was founded on.

Personally, I find that to be more dangerous in the long term to the nation than the fact that no legislature will create a right that has never existed in our history.

So I guess to me, your stance could be considered grotesque and ignorant...