Quantcast

Jump to content


Photo

Gay Marriage Bill Passes for New York


  • Please log in to reply
181 replies to this topic

#151 Frizzle

Frizzle
  • M'lord

  • 16889 posts


Users Awards

Posted 28 June 2011 - 02:25 PM

Does no-one notice the hypcrocisy and irony in the pro-gay posts?

Let the people decided yadayadaya /roman empire style

#152 j0nath0n3

j0nath0n3
  • 93 posts

Posted 28 June 2011 - 02:28 PM

Srsly people, if you are against it just DON'T marry someone of your same sex. It's so simple.... I hate yellow and i'm not obligating people not to wear something from this color.

Here on brazil, we got the domestic partnership last month, and it's sad how people think they can tell everyone else what to do. It's a big step until we have the civil marriage approved, but i hope we'll have this soon, just like NY :)


eu so brasileiro tambem.. :) mais a lei no brasil nao funciona entao vou ficar nos EUA.

#153 Jibrille

Jibrille
  • 462 posts


Users Awards

Posted 28 June 2011 - 02:50 PM

eu so brasileiro tambem.. :) mais a lei no brasil nao funciona entao vou ficar nos EUA.


Speak in english, so everybody can understand XD

It works as domestic partnership, but not like civil marriage, 'cause they are different. Btw, what are you doing there? XD

#154 Phog

Phog
  • 13 posts

Posted 28 June 2011 - 04:12 PM

Frizzle, I would love for you to explain the irony to me.

Edited by Phog, 28 June 2011 - 04:13 PM.


#155 Dante1125

Dante1125
  • 21 posts

Posted 28 June 2011 - 04:15 PM

I'm from NY and I teared with joy to see Marriage Equality finally being legal in NY.

But that's just the step. If DOMA gets repealed then ALL marriage rights for EVERYONE will truley be legal.

But until then, there's no federal recognition thanks to that unconsitutional bill :/

#156 Chalk

Chalk
  • 311 posts


Users Awards

Posted 28 June 2011 - 06:11 PM

I'm so glad the bill passed. Now hopefully the marijuana bill passes too.


Hopefully. :x

Edited by Chalk, 28 June 2011 - 06:11 PM.


#157 MeWantCookies

MeWantCookies
  • 60 posts

Posted 28 June 2011 - 06:32 PM

I'm so glad that I saw this in the news like 20 minutes before I checked neocodex. The day I start learning big news like this on a neopet cheating site is the day I probably need to cut back on my game time...

#158 Frizzle

Frizzle
  • M'lord

  • 16889 posts


Users Awards

Posted 28 June 2011 - 07:00 PM

Frizzle, I would love for you to explain the irony to me.


"you can't tell us what to do, we have the right to marry"

"you can't think like that, you can't be against us"

Basically people have the right to be against gay marriage and although it's up for public thought/debate, people do not need a good/any reason.

The public majority wins at all costs, what society dictates, happens, for better or worse. If people want gay marriage banned, it stays banned. Vica versa also.

Personally I will stick out of it. It doesnt affect me and I couldnt care less if gay people can marry or not. It's not a fundamental right like voting, driving or being in a relationship (in which case I would be all for), it's about forcing a group of people into conceding into something they don't want. In this case the en mass religious.

A public referendum should be set up and let them decide.
Our country has a state religion and the majority of our laws, values and beliefs, as well as a huge proportion of our country are religious in some way. Their views should not be discounted just because someone has an opinionated stick wedged firmly between their arse.

#159 Narcissa

Narcissa

  • 320 posts

Posted 28 June 2011 - 07:45 PM

It's not a fundamental right like voting, driving or being in a relationship (in which case I would be all for), it's about forcing a group of people into conceding into something they don't want. In this case the en mass religious.


... How is marrying someone you love and wanting to share the benefits that other couples are inherently granted the privilege of not a fundamental right?

Pretty sure that the Bill of Rights say the pursuit of happiness and if marrying someone of the same gender, transgender, or a goat for fucks sake? If it makes you happy and within reason of the law you should be allowed to do it.

This IS a civil rights case and it's really quite silly that you see being in a relationship as a fundamental right but marrying is not. But then again you do post a lot of nonsensical stuff around here so.

#160 Tanuki

Tanuki
  • 80 posts

Posted 29 June 2011 - 12:28 AM

I think the NY announcement is fabulous. All I can do is wait for Australian politicians to listen to the clear majority (60-something percent) of people here who support gay marriage too.

The way I look at this is pretty simple. In a modern society, irrespective of our history or demographic makeup, we should uphold the separation of state and religion. We have a fundamental right to freedom of religion (or lack thereof). History shows us that social values change over time, so we should never feel constrained by the religion which (currently) influences what society believes is "right"--take it into consideration, sure, but never uphold it as gospel (so to speak).

Marriage, in modern society, is no longer a religious institution. It is a civil institution. Marriage brings with it certain civil rights, benefits, and responsibilities, which generally involve things such as tax benefits, ability to see your loved ones in hospital, things like inheritance, adoption, etc. etc. None of these aspects are inherently religious. People can CHOOSE to incorporate religion into their marriage, but with freedom of religion, people may be marrying in a church, a mosque, a shrine, or in a botanical gardens completely devoid of religion (as my sister did). The choice of incorporating religion is where the churches come in, and that's where legislation can say that a church does not need to accept a gay marriage if it's within their tenents (or whatever) to not do so. Because, ultimately, the spiritual side of marriage is not what's affecting most people. It's the actual, tangible stuff at stake--and that's why it's so important. And something like civil partnerships is not good enough, because it encourages a sense of "similar, but different", and that kind of attitude is not going to help the sorts of bullying and such that were mentioned earlier in the thread.

And I mean, honestly. The sky hasn't fallen in Canada or Holland or the myriad of other places where it's okay. People won't give a shit a few years after it's passed. A decade or two down the track people won't get bullied for having "two mummies" because it'll be as normal as being a "bastard child" (that used to be pretty bad!) or having a single parent or being red-headed or having glasses or whatever. Sure, kids will be assholes, but nothing's going to stop that.

#161 Frizzle

Frizzle
  • M'lord

  • 16889 posts


Users Awards

Posted 29 June 2011 - 02:28 AM

... How is marrying someone you love and wanting to share the benefits that other couples are inherently granted the privilege of not a fundamental right?

Pretty sure that the Bill of Rights say the pursuit of happiness and if marrying someone of the same gender, transgender, or a goat for fucks sake? If it makes you happy and within reason of the law you should be allowed to do it.

This IS a civil rights case and it's really quite silly that you see being in a relationship as a fundamental right but marrying is not. But then again you do post a lot of nonsensical stuff around here so.


Sorry, I'm not a yank. Our country isn't based on some pile of shit bill of rights. Its based on millennia of history. Law, stature and conventions.

We have civil unions here i.e a marriage in all but name. Exact same rights, benefits and so forth. That's their "human rights" if you will.

(if you noticed the "" around human rights, this is due to the fact this social concept is easily changes, not interchangeable between culture, and a ridiculous peice of legislation in the UK)

Also, if you want to get personal, fuck off. No-one gives a fuck that you love getting down on all fours and licking cunt. Stop getting so fuckig defensive. I'd ban the right to life for homos because of people like you.

#162 Tanuki

Tanuki
  • 80 posts

Posted 29 June 2011 - 03:31 AM

Dude, it feels like you're the one getting a bit personal and defensive here. "Ban the right to life for homos because of people like you"? Wow. :huh:

The problem with civil unions is exactly that they are marriage in all but name. Similar, but different. Equal, yet separate. Making this sort of separation gives an intrinsic degree of worth to both institutions, and thus makes gay citizens lesser in the eyes of the law as they can access one but not the other. This only serves to heighten social issues such as homophobia, gay bashing, etc. I needn't quote all the statistics on suicide, depression and so on of gay kids, I hope.

In an ideal future, homosexuality would not be viewed as "different", but rather, simply normal. As normal as being left handed or having red hair: less represented over a broad spectrum of society, but not something that anyone looks at as being weird. Notable, perhaps. But nothing so out of the ordinary that it would lead to discrimination.

Also, the Westminster system and all its conventions are hardly perfect solutions. I've got a lot of respect for the American Bill of Rights, and I imagine a lot of the yanks here do too.

#163 Frizzle

Frizzle
  • M'lord

  • 16889 posts


Users Awards

Posted 29 June 2011 - 05:05 AM

Well yes, people get defensive to personal attacks or ala ad homeinems, that's obvious.

And of corse civil unions will be different to marriages. A marriage is between a man and women. Which is obviously different to two blokes or girls. I understand the concept of making it "normal" or trivialising it, but IT IS different. Making gay marriage legal will not stem the tide of homophobia or bullying.

Nazism is banned throughout the western world yet every country has large amount of ultra right wing or neo-Nazi sects.

Yes, the yanks love the bill of rights. The same bill that grants the American people to accidently shot loved ones due to racist paranoia. Or the fact that the British monarchy may someday invade your trailer park. I'll let our 85 year old lizzie know that you're well prepared.

Also the point wasn't the obvious flaws in Americas political system compared to the worlds most envious one (ours), it was that people concentrate purely on the American overtone of the conversation and forgot about international implications, differences and comparisons.

Also don't take any shock humour into consideration, that would be silly.

#164 Tanuki

Tanuki
  • 80 posts

Posted 29 June 2011 - 07:47 AM

Correction: Marriage is currently between a man and a woman, in some nations. Here in Australia, in fact, it was only specifically defined as such in 2004. Before then, the legislation didn't make reference to gender at all. And then of course we have places like Canada, the Netherlands, some states of the US, etc, where it is, in fact, normal.

What exactly makes the marriage of two guys or two girls so different to a marriage between a guy and a girl, besides the fact that current legislation does not allow for it? (We of course can never assume our current laws are infalliable.) All I can really think of is the procreation aspect, which is not a stipulated part of marriage anyway. Infertile couples, children outside of marriage, people who just don't want kids, adoption, menopause, etc, kind of make this a moot point. Besides religious angst, which is easy to deal with, as I said previously.

Legalising gay marriage in itself will not STOP homophobia, but it would certainly be a step in the right direction. Criminalising racism doesn't stop people hating on people with different skin colours either. But giving equality, along with gradual education and exposure to the new social norm, gradually reduces discrimination.

I don't really know what to say about the Godwinism :rolleyes: apart from the fact that you really can't stop a minority of people from being fuckwits. Doesn't mean that the majority of people aren't more reasonable.

People do indeed focus on the American side of things, but I'm not sure if everything is all that different overseas. We may not have a Bill of Rights, but (here at least - can't say I know much about the UK) we certainly have democratic rights and freedoms which are supposed to ensure equal treatment regardless of who you are. The argument about what their Bill of Rights says in this respect is actually pretty similar to our constitutional rights. The rest of the Bill of Rights is pretty irrelevant to the discussion.

#165 Joanna

Joanna
  • 839 posts


Users Awards

Posted 29 June 2011 - 10:37 AM

I wonder if I'm the only american who hates being called a "yank". Posted Image Sounds derogatory to me.

#166 Narcissa

Narcissa

  • 320 posts

Posted 29 June 2011 - 12:29 PM

Sorry, I'm not a yank. Our country isn't based on some pile of shit bill of rights. Its based on millennia of history. Law, stature and conventions.

We have civil unions here i.e a marriage in all but name. Exact same rights, benefits and so forth. That's their "human rights" if you will.

(if you noticed the "" around human rights, this is due to the fact this social concept is easily changes, not interchangeable between culture, and a ridiculous peice of legislation in the UK)

Also, if you want to get personal, fuck off. No-one gives a fuck that you love getting down on all fours and licking cunt. Stop getting so fuckig defensive. I'd ban the right to life for homos because of people like you.


See that's the thing, Civil Unions aren't legally the same here. Point and blank. All you get is tax benefits, if you're lucky enough to have the political party that's in office allowing it at that point in time.

Yes, our government may not be the best but to be quite honest, I'd much rather be here fighting for my rights then having millions of dollars taken from our tax payer dollars to pay for some lame ass royal wedding because they squandered all their money away generations ago. Technically, you're probably not genetically even British anymore since you guys got raped by the anglo-saxons eons ago, who might, I add were German. You're English. We're not all morons here in the states so please don't automatically assume we don't know shit about your government and history.

Also, my personal affronts were never directed at you and yes, if someone is blatantly saying that I'd be a bad parent because my child would have two mommy's I'm going to get fucking defensive. If I want to go, "lick cunt" as you so maturely put it then that's my fucking right. Still does not give you dictation or condemnation of my happiness. All I pointed out was that you post a lot of nonsensical stuff around here, which is still true.

I wonder if I'm the only american who hates being called a "yank". public/style_emoticons/default/dry.gif Sounds derogatory to me.


Nope, I don't like it either. The brits seem to have Limey, John Bull, or Pommy. I'm not really up to date on derogatory terms though since you know, I don't like being a bigot/racist.

Edited by Narcissa, 29 June 2011 - 12:33 PM.


#167 Frizzle

Frizzle
  • M'lord

  • 16889 posts


Users Awards

Posted 29 June 2011 - 12:42 PM

You didn't actually address any points other than "you're a German rape baby" and "I know about politics duh".

But nice try anyway yankedoodles.

#168 Joanna

Joanna
  • 839 posts


Users Awards

Posted 29 June 2011 - 12:46 PM

You didn't actually address any points other than "you're a German rape baby" and "I know about politics duh".

But nice try anyway yankedoodles.


No reason to address your points if you're going to insult us.

#169 Narcissa

Narcissa

  • 320 posts

Posted 29 June 2011 - 01:08 PM

You didn't actually address any points other than "you're a German rape baby" and "I know about politics duh".

But nice try anyway yankedoodles.


Uhm, alright, glad to see were back to name calling and not making valid arguments. Didn't know I had regressed back to kindergarten! GG! (Btw, you may want to brush up on your derogatory terms for us Americans. Pretty sure most of us will brush off "yankeedoodles" rather well.)

I've still yet to see anyone state why they're against gay marriage in a sensible way other then the religion/kid de facto.

Also, to those who've stated that Texas won't change, I just read that they're getting an openly gay judge to be their U.S attorney for their western district. And he was nominated by two Republicans. :) Link!

Edited by Narcissa, 29 June 2011 - 01:09 PM.


#170 Frizzle

Frizzle
  • M'lord

  • 16889 posts


Users Awards

Posted 29 June 2011 - 01:45 PM

Yank isn't an insult, it's a term like paddy or ginge. If you can't see past that, well that's your problem.

If you actually read my point you'd see if I wasn't arguing against gay marriage, rather peoples right to be against it. Obviously the term civil liberties goes both ways.

#171 Joanna

Joanna
  • 839 posts


Users Awards

Posted 29 June 2011 - 01:56 PM

Yank isn't an insult, it's a term like paddy or ginge. If you can't see past that, well that's your problem.

If you actually read my point you'd see if I wasn't arguing against gay marriage, rather peoples right to be against it. Obviously the term civil liberties goes both ways.




Whether or not you were intending to insult this:

"Sorry, I'm not a yank. Our country isn't based on some pile of shit bill of rights."


sounds like an insult to me.




And I don't disagree with your point that people have a right to be against it. I said that before, so I didn't feel a need to address it, especially after being insulted.

#172 Frizzle

Frizzle
  • M'lord

  • 16889 posts


Users Awards

Posted 29 June 2011 - 05:01 PM

Whether or not you were intending to insult this:

"Sorry, I'm not a yank. Our country isn't based on some pile of shit bill of rights."




If you take a negative criticism of a political system as an insult then yo got problams
sounds like an insult to me.




And I don't disagree with your point that people have a right to be against it. I said that before, so I didn't feel a need to address it, especially after being insulted.



#173 Phog

Phog
  • 13 posts

Posted 29 June 2011 - 06:20 PM

1. The ability to deny a group its liberty faces the burden of proof in American jurisprudence. I think that's the case in most sane countries. The majority cannot simply decide that, say, gingers cannot drink alcohol just because we all got together and outvoted the gingers. There has to be a reason; they face a burden of proof. The minority is protected from the tyranny of the majority.

2. Marriage is a fundamental right possessed by Americans as lined out many times by the Supreme Court of the United States. Civil Unions in the U.S. do not grant the same rights as marriage.

3. Your entire point is moot because Americans nationally favor marriage for gay couples. And these state-by-state votes are exactly the displays of majority rule that you're claiming don't want gay marriage.

4. Frizzle, the United Kingdom is a perfectly wonderful place without you claiming that the Bill of Rights is a pile of shit or that the unitary system of government is the best form of government EVAR. So feel free to drop the bravado. Your demonstrated understanding of the Bill of Rights is either misguided or purposely distorted for effect.

5. The terms "yank" or "yankee" have been around for centuries. I don't find them insulting even if they are intended as such. Wikipedia suggests "In English-speaking countries outside the United States, Yankee, almost universally shortened to Yank, is used as a derogatory, playful or colloquial term for Americans." Don't let it bother you. Hell, we even refer to our soccer team as "the Yanks."

6. Narcissa, your enthusiasm on this issue is much appreciated - and I agree with you - but I think it's important that we all keep level heads when discussing hot-button issues. Let's try to keep it civil. Also, the "Pursuit of Happiness" is not in the Bill of Rights - it's in the Declaration of Independence.

edit: Holy cow, this thing was one huge block of text. Definitely not meant that way. Hopefully *fixed*

Edited by Phog, 29 June 2011 - 06:23 PM.


#174 j0nath0n3

j0nath0n3
  • 93 posts

Posted 29 June 2011 - 06:45 PM

1. The ability to deny a group its liberty faces the burden of proof in American jurisprudence. I think that's the case in most sane countries. The majority cannot simply decide that, say, gingers cannot drink alcohol just because we all got together and outvoted the gingers. There has to be a reason; they face a burden of proof. The minority is protected from the tyranny of the majority.

2. Marriage is a fundamental right possessed by Americans as lined out many times by the Supreme Court of the United States. Civil Unions in the U.S. do not grant the same rights as marriage.

3. Your entire point is moot because Americans nationally favor marriage for gay couples. And these state-by-state votes are exactly the displays of majority rule that you're claiming don't want gay marriage.

4. Frizzle, the United Kingdom is a perfectly wonderful place without you claiming that the Bill of Rights is a pile of shit or that the unitary system of government is the best form of government EVAR. So feel free to drop the bravado. Your demonstrated understanding of the Bill of Rights is either misguided or purposely distorted for effect.

5. The terms "yank" or "yankee" have been around for centuries. I don't find them insulting even if they are intended as such. Wikipedia suggests "In English-speaking countries outside the United States, Yankee, almost universally shortened to Yank, is used as a derogatory, playful or colloquial term for Americans." Don't let it bother you. Hell, we even refer to our soccer team as "the Yanks."

6. Narcissa, your enthusiasm on this issue is much appreciated - and I agree with you - but I think it's important that we all keep level heads when discussing hot-button issues. Let's try to keep it civil. Also, the "Pursuit of Happiness" is not in the Bill of Rights - it's in the Declaration of Independence.

edit: Holy cow, this thing was one huge block of text. Definitely not meant that way. Hopefully *fixed*

America protects minority.. you can notice that we have a black president..blacks are not a majority.

#175 ShadowLink64

ShadowLink64
  • 16735 posts


Users Awards

Posted 29 June 2011 - 07:31 PM

Good for them. This doesn't really affect me personally, but I'm glad their right to marry is finally being recognized.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users