New York Appeals Court Won't Allow Gay Marriage

[RightinNYC]

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?

Unless I'm mistaken, nobody on this thread has come out in opposition to allowing gay couples to have the same access to health care, etc, that straight couples get.

So your straw man doesn't quite hold up.

 

[26 X World Champs]

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...

Hard to believe that a college student isn't smart enough to acknowledge and champion the discrimination being leveled to Gays. Why is that? What do you think will happen if two men marry each other? What are you afraid of? Why are you OK with depriving your neighbor of health insurance, inheritance rights etc.?

I can understand homophobic beliefs as expressed by people like Navy Pride but I am surprised that someone who has intelligence would land on the side that hurts other people simply because they like members of their own sex more than the opposite sex.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Unless I'm mistaken, nobody on this thread has come out in opposition to allowing gay couples to have the same access to health care, etc, that straight couples get.

So your straw man doesn't quite hold up.

Right and some of my best friends are...

Separate but equal is wrong.

There are almost no communities in the USA that provide the same rights to Gays that married Heteros have.

Knowing that preventing Gays from marrying each other also prevents them from having married peoples rights IS the same thing as opposing rights like health care, hospital visitation, terminal illness decisions, inheritance taxes etc. for Gays. Turning a blind eye is as bad as marching in the Anti-Gay demonstrations that happen around the USA.

Straw man? Sure, that's a nice diversion, attack the messenger rather than the message. How will your life be negatively affected by George & Dick getting married?

 

[RightinNYC]

Hard to believe that a college student isn't smart enough to acknowledge and champion the discrimination being leveled to Gays. Why is that? What do you think will happen if two men marry each other? What are you afraid of? Why are you OK with depriving your neighbor of health insurance, inheritance rights etc.?

I can understand homophobic beliefs as expressed by people like Navy Pride but I am surprised that someone who has intelligence would land on the side that hurts other people simply because they like members of their own sex more than the opposite sex.

What on earth are you blathering about? I always have and will support giving gays completely equal rights in marriage. If the prospect came up as a proposition, I'd vote for it, and its one of many qualities that I look for in a candidate. I look forward to the day when it is legislated and this can all be behind us.

Unlike you, however, I'm not willing to subvert the Constitution in order to get it. I believe that like any law, it should be authorized by the elected officials empowered to do so, rather than by the courts.

Are you okay with 5 white Catholic men deciding how the country should be run? I'm not.

 

[RightinNYC]

Right and some of my best friends are...

Separate but equal is wrong.

There are almost no communities in the USA that provide the same rights to Gays that married Heteros have.

Knowing that preventing Gays from marrying each other also prevents them from having married peoples rights IS the same thing as opposing rights like health care, hospital visitation, terminal illness decisions, inheritance taxes etc. for Gays. Turning a blind eye is as bad as marching in the Anti-Gay demonstrations that happen around the USA.

Straw man? Sure, that's a nice diversion, attack the messenger rather than the message. How will your life be negatively affected by George & Dick getting married?

I don't even know what you're attacking here, but its drastically off the mark. The point I made was that even those on here who have come out in opposition to "gay marriage" seem to uniformly support allowing civil unions which WOULD give them all the same rights as married people.

Now, we can debate over whether or not that's sufficient, but it doesn't help your argument (or make sense) to rail about the injustice of denying them the same rights when nobody is proposing to deny them.

Take a step back, look at where people are on this issue, recognize where the differences are, and move from there calmly and sensibly. Rhetoric =/= Policy-making

 

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

Let's see what the New York court said about that

"In addition to "preserving the traditional institution of marriage" (Lawrence v Texas, 539 US at 585 [O'Connor, J., concurring in the judgment]), reserving marriage to opposite-sex couples is reasonably related to the State's interests in ensuring a stable legal and societal framework in which children are procreated and raised, and providing the benefits of dual gender parenting for the children so procreated. Courts in New York have traditionally recognized the legitimacy of these interests.[FN4] Moreover, it is evident that same-sex couples cannot procreate by themselves[FN5] @FN5<#itl>See Singer v Hara, 11 Wash App at 259, 260, 522 P2d at 1195 ("marriage exists as a protected legal institution primarily because of societal values associated with the propagation of the human race" and "no same-sex couple offers the possibility of the birth of children by their union"); Dean v District of Columbia, 653 A2d at 337 (finding that this "central purpose . . . provides the kind of rational basis . . . permitting limitation of marriage to heterosexual couples"); Standhardt v Superior Ct., 206 Ariz at 287-288, 77 P3d at 462-463 ("The State could reasonably decide that by encouraging opposite-sex couples to marry, thereby assuming legal and financial obligations, the children born from such relationships will have better opportunities to be nurtured and raised by two parents within long-term, committed relationships, which society has traditionally viewed as advantageous for children. Because same-sex couples cannot by themselves procreate, the State could . . . reasonably decide that sanctioning same-sex marriages would do little to advance the State's interest in ensuring responsible procreation within committed, long-term relationships.")

So much for favoring traditional marriage is unreasonable and irrational.