New York Appeals Court Won't Allow Gay Marriage

[Geekybrunette]

Why do I even bother with you..............I did not say that being gay was abnormal, I send the main sex act that gays and straights engage in is I believe abnormal and I beleive most Americans agree with me..................You really need to read the posts before you go off half cocked........

Do you always agree with what the majority thinks? Or do you only play the majority card when it suits your viewpoint?

 

[Alex]

To Alex and Geekybrunette

I responded to Kelzie saying she had never heard the rational arguement from my side. I gave it to her stating that she probably would not agree. Clearly you do not either, but those are the reasons and they are very logical and rational. In fact more so than those given in rebuttle. And THAT is why the majority of people in our society oppose changing marriage to include homosexual marriages. Not homophobia or any of the other bogus reasons your side tends to put out as you can read here in this thread.

I have already proven your statements to be irrational. See post #98.

 

[jallman]

WOW!!

So I have been in the Yukon since sunday and trying to keep up with the conversations going on here whenever I have internet connection. I'm home now and just getting a chance to respond to some of this so, please, allow me to interject my take on the whole issue...

As a gay man, I understand fully that my "lifestyle" is abnormal in the true context of the word. My fellows make up about 7-10% of the total population. That means that if you ask 10 people (at best) what their orientation is, then 9 will say hetero and 1 (absolutely the abnormal) will say homo. Thats not a problem with me because it is base, raw, and quantifiable data. The one out of ten is abnormality.

However, I know that our law protects the individual and the right to personal choice (please dont confuse this with me stating homosexuality is a choice). As such, I have a right to express my abnormality so long as I am not infringing on the rights of others.

The majority of America clings to marriage as a normal tradition...a right of the heterosexual normality to claim as a token of social induction. "Marriage" is an elevation of the couple to the singularity before the law.

Here comes the problem: I love and cherish another person and I wish the same rights of singularity in the eyes of the law. But my relaitionship is the abnormality...it is the exception to the statistical law. Now, I have the right under the law to my personal choice, so why dont I get the right to "marry"?

In my opinion, its not about "marrying", it is about coupling. Let heterosexuals have the tradition of "marriage" and all the religious connotations that involves. I, meanwhile, can have the right to "couple" under different language and legal provisions...let the traditions remain steady and let "us" have our rights without treading on the toes of the majority (or as they like to say, the normal).

Bottom line is this: gay "marriage" is going to happen in one form or another. I would prefer to see it happen with as little schism in society as possible.

 

[Stinger]

I have already proven your statements to be irrational. See post #98.

Actually you gave a differing opinion but nothing in my post was irrational at all.

 

[Stinger]

I summed up several arguments of yours that are not rational - the main ones being that the more children a relationship produces the better, that same sex marriage is the same as same sex couples raising children, and that same sex couples are somehow depriving kids of a heterosexual household.

No you have a differing opinion but nothing in my post was irrational, it is quite the accepted norm. Heterosexual realationships/marriage are better for society and children as a whole and for the future and therefore they should be encouraged and others relationships not encouraged, not denied, not banned, but certainly not encouraged or sanctioned.

 

[Geekybrunette]

No you have a differing opinion but nothing in my post was irrational, it is quite the accepted norm. Heterosexual realationships/marriage are better for society and children as a whole and for the future and therefore they should be encouraged and others relationships not encouraged, not denied, not banned, but certainly not encouraged or sanctioned.

Rational and the accepted norm are not synonymous.

Ok - so it shouldn't be encouraged or sanctioned. Let me ask you then what you would prefer gay people do:

a. Enter into straight relationships (whether short or long term)
b. Remain totally celibate
c. Enter into many meaningless short term relationships
d. Engage in a long term relationship - similar (so your feathers aren't ruffled) to marriage
e. Just shut up and not talk about anything homosexual related at all

 

[Navy Pride]

Do you always agree with what the majority thinks? Or do you only play the majority card when it suits your viewpoint?

In this case I do.

If the majority is for spending I don't............If the majority is for amnesty for illegals I don't........If the majority is against a flag burning amendment I don't

 

[Navy Pride]

Rational and the accepted norm are not synonymous.

Ok - so it shouldn't be encouraged or sanctioned. Let me ask you then what you would prefer gay people do:

a. Enter into straight relationships (whether short or long term)
b. Remain totally celibate
c. Enter into many meaningless short term relationships
d. Engage in a long term relationship - similar (so your feathers aren't ruffled) to marriage
e. Just shut up and not talk about anything homosexual related at all

Enter into Civil Unions with the same benefits that married people receive........

 

[Geekybrunette]

In this case I do.

If the majority is for spending I don't............If the majority is for amnesty for illegals I don't........If the majority is against a flag burning amendment I don't

See, that's the problem. So what if the majority of the public agrees with you on something? Apparently it proves your point when they do, and it's irrelevant when they don't. You can't have it both ways. In other words, unless you always want to side with what the public at large thinks, don't bring it up :lol:

 

[Geekybrunette]

Enter into Civil Unions with the same benefits that married people receive........

I'm not "against" civil unions. The way I see it, there are three options:

a. The first option is ideal. This is the government getting entirely rid of the word marriage and replacing it with civil union (or domestic partnership or whatever). This would require removing marriage from any existing law. Under the new civil union laws, any two people of legal age could apply for a civil union. The rights would be the same as what the government currently gives to legally married people.

People who wanted to get "married" could do so in a church. Churches wouldn't be forced to marry a same sex couple. If they wanted to, they would be free to do so. They would also be free to marry a guy to his shoes, as long as said marriage didn't give any governmental benefits/rights/priveledges.

While it's a fine idea, I don't think it's feasible.

b. The second option is to allow same sex couples to get married. Personally, it's not so I or anyone else can trash the word marriage. I feel that I love my partner just as much as any straight couple loves each other - and I feel she loves me just the same. The only real reasons I desire this over option c is that I feel it would be harder to destroy/ruin than a seperate civil union law. I feel civil unions could be ruined by lawmakers and current other parts of our social system (ie a potential employer runs a background check and decides not to hire someone because they had a civil union instead of a marriage).

c. Keep marriage the same and give same sex couples civil unions. I already mentioned why I don't think this system is ideal. That said, it's better than nothing, and I would take it in a heartbeat.

The other problem one must recognize is that very close to the majority (if not the majority) of people in this country don't believe in civil unions either. Many have made that clear by the fact that some state constitutions have been written to not only exclude same sex marriage, but same sex partnerships that give similar benefits as marriage of any kind.

 

[Navy Pride]

See, that's the problem. So what if the majority of the public agrees with you on something? Apparently it proves your point when they do, and it's irrelevant when they don't. You can't have it both ways. In other words, unless you always want to side with what the public at large thinks, don't bring it up :lol:

You said that not me.........I think their wrong but that is my opinion.........You said I always side with the majority, I proved I don't........

 

[Geekybrunette]

You said that not me.........I think their wrong but that is my opinion.........You said I always side with the majority, I proved I don't........

No, I didn't say you always side with the majority.

I said that using the majority to prove your point is wrong unless you always side with the majority.

You used the majority to prove your point... then after I asked you, you said you didn't always agree with the majority.

How can you use the majority to prove a point if you don't always agree with them?

 

[Navy Pride]

No, I didn't say you always side with the majority.

I said that using the majority to prove your point is wrong unless you always side with the majority.

You used the majority to prove your point... then after I asked you, you said you didn't always agree with the majority.

How can you use the majority to prove a point if you don't always agree with them?

Everyone has and opinion on the issue........I don't establish my opinion om whether I am in the majority or not..........

 

[Geekybrunette]

Everyone has and opinion on the issue........I don't establish my opinion om whether I am in the majority or not..........

Yes.

But then what the majority thinks is completely irrelevant to the discussion. The majority thinks a lot of things. I agree with some and disagree with some. How is that an issue though?

 

[Navy Pride]

26 Champs said

***************
Your main point is WRONG. In fact 50% of Americans are OK with Gay Marriage and 47% oppose it. This number is changing, slowly, annually to favor Gay marriage. 10 years ago only 40% approved...where will we be in 10 years? 60%+?

So far 20 states have passed amendments banning gay marriage with the lowest percentage of 58% in Oregon and with several states over 80% so you poll is flawed

 

[Navy Pride]

Yes.

But then what the majority thinks is completely irrelevant to the discussion. The majority thinks a lot of things. I agree with some and disagree with some. How is that an issue though?

This country elects its politicians based on the vote of the majority.........The politicians they elect are suppose to vote on issues based on the wishes of the constituents........

 

[Geekybrunette]

This country elects its politicians based on the vote of the majority.........The politicians they elect are suppose to vote on issues based on the wishes of the constituents........

Then since the majority of Americans think anal sex is yucky, let's go back to the old Texas sodomy laws? LOL am I right?

 

[Alex]

Actually you gave a differing opinion but nothing in my post was irrational at all.

I supported my differing opinion with reliable evidence. What do you have to support your's?

You posted this:
"we are designed to be in heterosexual families,"

and this:
"children are best served in a heterosexual family"

and this:
"society is best served if we encourage that behavior instead of abnormal behaviors such as homosexuality"

(all from post #97)

Definition of irrational: Not rational; unfounded or nonsensical

Source: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/irrational

You offered nothing to back up these claims so they are unfounded, and therefore, they are irrational.

 

[Deegan]

I supported my differing opinion with reliable evidence. What do you have to support your's?

You posted this:
"we are designed to be in heterosexual families,"

and this:
"children are best served in a heterosexual family"

and this:
"society is best served if we encourage that behavior instead of abnormal behaviors such as homosexuality"

(all from post #97)

Definition of irrational: Not rational; unfounded or nonsensical

Source: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/irrational

You offered nothing to back up these claims so they are unfounded, and therefore, they are irrational.

There is certainly nothing irrational about this opinion, nothing at all.

 

[Alex]

There is certainly nothing irrational about this opinion, nothing at all.

Read the definition.

 

[Deegan]

Read the definition.

I did, and you're wrong.:doh

 

[Navy Pride]

Then since the majority of Americans think anal sex is yucky, let's go back to the old Texas sodomy laws? LOL am I right?

No, not at all.....I think the majority of Americans believe that what 2 consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom is their business.....The majority will also say that the sex act the engage in is abnormal........

 

[26 X World Champs]

So far 20 states have passed amendments banning gay marriage with the lowest percentage of 58% in Oregon and with several states over 80% so you poll is flawed

Dude law is determined by a majority opinion so your entire premise is "flawed."

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.

Either everyone has the same rights or it's WRONG, period, no exceptions. Anyone who favors preventing Gays from getting married to each other is committing bigotry against Gays and no matter how you try to spin it the truth remains the truth. It's all or nothing and those of you who would prevent Gays from the same rights you enjoy are practicing bigotry against Gays which makes all of you BIGOTS....

 

[Navy Pride]

Dude law is determined by a majority opinion so your entire premise is "flawed."

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.

Either everyone has the same rights or it's WRONG, period, no exceptions. Anyone who favors preventing Gays from getting married to each other is committing bigotry against Gays and no matter how you try to spin it the truth remains the truth. It's all or nothing and those of you who would prevent Gays from the same rights you enjoy are practicing bigotry against Gays which makes all of you BIGOTS....

Why do you continually attack people personally that disagree with you...Don't you remember that got you in trouble once before and you got 3 months on the beach.......

 

[26 X World Champs]

Why do you continually attack people personally that disagree with you...Don't you remember that got you in trouble once before and you got 3 months on the beach.......

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?