NY legalized gay marriage tonight. We're the 6th state to do so, and the largest one to do so far. I'm absolutely shocked that it made it through the Senate and am ecstatic that it did. It's about intercourse ing time.
Damn them gays. They're always making too many babies and overpopulating this world and draining resources. Damn them.
I'd never get married. Ever. To a girl or guy. I just see no need for it other than financial reasons.
Now the other 44 states need to become a little less ass backwards.
I've always been fine with gay marriage. The only qualm I've ever had is the whole "in your face" stuff. It's like, we don't run around throwing parades saying "EVERYBODY, WE'RE STRAIGHT. US MEN LIKE WOMEN YEAH WOO". Any homosexual who is just like "Yeah, I like other men, so what?" is okay with me.
So yeah, marry whoever you want. Doesn't bother me.
But yeah, some other states need to follow us quick. We shouldn't be one of only six.
We've had gay marriage here for years, you guys are slow.
Quote from: Gwen Khan on June 25, 2011, 11:31:48 AM
We've had gay marriage here for years, you guys are slow.
Where now?
So Hostile, when do you want to marry? ( ¬‿¬)
Quote from: Gwen Khan on June 25, 2011, 12:06:05 PM
Massachusetts
It's pretty much most of the northeast now. Except Maine, if I remember right.
Quote from: Kayo on June 25, 2011, 12:12:17 PM
It's pretty much most of the northeast now. Except Maine, if I remember right.
My city is the "Lesbian capital of the US"
Quote from: Gwen Khan on June 25, 2011, 12:16:20 PM
My city is the "Lesbian capital of the US"
Good job.
Quote from: Gwen Khan on June 25, 2011, 12:16:20 PM
My city is the "Lesbian capital of the US"
Such an achievement.
Quote from: Super on June 25, 2011, 12:03:32 PM
So Hostile, when do you want to marry? ( ¬‿¬)
Well, the law goes into effect in 30 days...
Aww, I wish I were actually in Albany during all this. I can't believe they actually passed it, in the Republican-controlled Senate no less. Those 4 senators renewed my hope in the GOP. And then I read an article about Newt Gingrich.
I wish we could get this poop fixed in Missouri. We've got KC and STL with plenty of liberal voters, but there's all that Ozark, Branson, southern MO conservative fundamentalism that keeps us from passing a law allowing same sex marriage.
Oh god, I remember when I went on vacation in Branson. I live in Texas and I never saw so many Confederate flags. We left a few days early.
Alternately, perhaps the state could just get out of the marriage licensing business for both straights and gays entirely. We all know that won't happen, though.
PY YOU'RE BACK <3
Quote from: IhsoyOhcysp on June 26, 2011, 05:13:25 PM
Alternately, perhaps the state could just get out of the marriage licensing business for both straights and gays entirely. We all know that won't happen, though.
Sure, let's throw a legal concept that makes dealing with various spousal, inheritance and custody disputes that's been around for thousands years right out the window because those intercourse ing queers want in.
Quote from: Friendly Hostile on June 26, 2011, 07:13:14 PM
Sure, let's throw a legal concept that makes dealing with various spousal, inheritance and custody disputes that's been around for thousands years right out the window because those intercourse ing queers want in.
I actually know someone who dislikes the idea of marriage because it was, technically, originally used to discriminate.
But I do rather have it so we adapt it to gays because it, in my opinion, sounds very difficult to remove marriage entirely...think of all the legislation and crap that'd have to occur to have the legal things tied to marriage to be tossed out with it. And not to mention the backlash that'd occur...
Quote from: Alisaihin on June 26, 2011, 07:21:41 PM
I actually know someone who dislikes the idea of marriage because it was, technically, originally used to discriminate.
That's a completely ludicrous reason to dislike the idea of marriage.
Tell your hipster friend never to breed. Probably won't be too difficult of a goal.
Quote from: Zero on June 26, 2011, 08:05:24 PM
That's a completely ludicrous reason to dislike the idea of marriage.
Tell your hipster friend never to breed. Probably won't be too difficult of a goal.
This is why we love when Zero posts.
Quote from: Friendly Hostile on June 26, 2011, 07:13:14 PM
Sure, let's throw a legal concept that makes dealing with various spousal, inheritance and custody disputes that's been around for thousands years right out the window because those intercourse ing queers want in.
I'm going to ignore in this post what I'm interpreting as the implication that I'm paradoxically homophobic while being gay myself. If this implication wasn't actually made, I apologize in advance.
Two questions, Hostile.
1) Are you arguing that the definition of marriage is:
a) A union between two individuals who consent
on their own terms to live/sleep together?
b) A union between two individuals who consent
under the state's terms to live/sleep together?
2)
If A:
-Why is such a contract through the state necessary if the terms of marriage are strictly dictated by the two individuals involved? "To secure marital rights, inheritance, visitation rights, etc." is a moot point if, as I suggested, the state simply stops sanctioning marriages altogether.
If B:
-Why is marriage the state's responsibility when the institution itself pre-dates organized government and religion?
I go with A, and no I'm not implying you're homophobic.
However, using marital status for those things is the more efficient way than relying on various agreements, legal documents etc. of determining what happens when a spouse dies, when a couple divorces, when a couple wants to adopt, etc. Even if the state is no longer providing actual benefits like joint tax filing and what not, marital status is much easier to use for dealing with those issues when a legal issue arises. The state isn't consenting to the contract or giving permission for it to exist, they're acknowledging its existence and using it to simplify and expedite various legal dilemmas that would otherwise take a considerably larger number of contracts, legal agreements and lawyers to deal with. The state getting out of the marriage business doesn't make those issues go away, because people will still fight over who gets stuff when they divorce, over what happens when your spouse dies, over whether or not they are entitle to adopt children, or who is legally the parents of the child when it is a child from a previous marriage, or who gets visitation rights in hospitals.
Instead of having to rewrite laws, wordings and definitions of various legal practices and create a whole new system of having to deal with these things, it's much simpler and more reasonable to simply expand what couples are acknowledged as married. Everyone still get's to follow their religious and personal beliefs, legal battles are simpler and more easily dealt with, and no one ends up worse off by doing so. This is an instance where the government makes things simpler and better, and is not interfering, but providing the option to an easier route in the legal realm for couples if they wish to seek it.
Uh, yay, they can get married now.
I was always for it, I never saw a reason not to have it.
Only person I've seen who has a true problem with this is one of my aunts (related by marriage--not blood) who is like, EXTREMELY religious.
I disagree with her--I mean so what if marriage has roots in religion where it was a bond between a man and a woman? Here's the thing: we are NOT a theocracy. While some religions greatly discourage--and even FORBID--homosexuality (I know it's punishable by death in some middle eastern countries where Islam is dominant), not everyone follows these religions. Trying to say that it can only be between a man and a woman, at this point, is like trying to make all inhabitants of the USA follow these religions.
In my opinion, it is in a way linked to religious freedom. No one's making you be a Catholic or a Muslim. You don't have to follow these religions; you can get married to one of the same-sex if you so please. In today's society, marriage just isn't religious anymore. And that seems to be the main argument for people against gay marriage. Doesn't work now.
Quote from: Kayo on June 28, 2011, 06:51:05 PM
In my opinion, it is in a way linked to religious freedom. No one's making you be a Catholic or a Muslim. You don't have to follow these religions; you can get married to one of the same-sex if you so please. In today's society, marriage just isn't religious anymore. And that seems to be the main argument for people against gay marriage. Doesn't work now.
Actually, marriage in itself is not looking to be as important anymore (this is not a homosexual or religious marriage argument, this is just marriage in general). We have so many divorces, affairs, and even single parents (such as teen parents [which I am not trying to point fingers at single parents either]) that marriage seems to only be a temporary choice (or, depending on who you talk to, a life-sentence) and is not as respected as it should be.
Marriage should be when two people love eachother enough that they will want to spend the rest of their lives together (until death do they part), and that love would be the reason that they do not cheat or harm one another.
Just saying, I want to love like that someday too.
Quote from: Tahrann on June 28, 2011, 08:04:36 PM
Marriage should be when two people love eachother enough that they will want to spend the rest of their lives together (until death do they part), and that love would be the reason that they do not cheat or harm one another.
It should be whatever the hell someone wants it to be.
Quote from: Doodle on June 28, 2011, 11:58:30 PM
It should be whatever the hell someone wants it to be.
Then it wouldn't be marriage.
Quote from: Tahrann on June 29, 2011, 12:05:34 AM
Then it wouldn't be marriage.
What if they wanted it to be marriage?
Maybe they should just not call it marriage anymore. It's nothing like it ever used to be, so we should have up a new word for it even. And that's not just homosexual "marriage" or what have you, I'm talking about all "marriage".
I dunno lol
Quote from: Kayo on June 29, 2011, 07:16:51 PM
Maybe they should just not call it marriage anymore. It's nothing like it ever used to be, so we should have up a new word for it even. And that's not just homosexual "marriage" or what have you, I'm talking about all "marriage".
I dunno lol
Because again, marriage in addition to any religious traditions it's tied to, is a legal concept that's been around for centuries and provides and easy way of simplifying a lot of legal issues that arises between couples.
And the idea of marriage lasting for life in a nice notion and all, but it fails to account for the fact that people change during their lives. The person you married at 25 isn't going to be that same person necessarily when they're 55. People grow and change during their lives. It's part of being human. And sometimes, a couple changes and stays together because they still love each other and the differences between them don't impact that. But sometimes that isn't the case.
Quote from: Friendly Hostile on June 29, 2011, 09:49:13 PM
Because again, marriage in addition to any religious traditions it's tied to, is a legal concept that's been around for centuries and provides and easy way of simplifying a lot of legal issues that arises between couples.
And the idea of marriage lasting for life in a nice notion and all, but it fails to account for the fact that people change during their lives. The person you married at 25 isn't going to be that same person necessarily when they're 55. People grow and change during their lives. It's part of being human. And sometimes, a couple changes and stays together because they still love each other and the differences between them don't impact that. But sometimes that isn't the case.
Yeah but, I'm pretty sure the divorce rate is much higher now. Don't quote me on that, but I'm almost positive that's the case. Marriage always used to seen more permanent...but now we have marriages that only last a few years. Or LESS.
Quote from: Friendly Hostile on June 28, 2011, 02:31:40 PM
I go with A, and no I'm not implying you're homophobic.
However, using marital status for those things is the more efficient way than relying on various agreements, legal documents etc. of determining what happens when a spouse dies, when a couple divorces, when a couple wants to adopt, etc. Even if the state is no longer providing actual benefits like joint tax filing and what not, marital status is much easier to use for dealing with those issues when a legal issue arises. The state isn't consenting to the contract or giving permission for it to exist, they're acknowledging its existence and using it to simplify and expedite various legal dilemmas that would otherwise take a considerably larger number of contracts, legal agreements and lawyers to deal with. The state getting out of the marriage business doesn't make those issues go away, because people will still fight over who gets stuff when they divorce, over what happens when your spouse dies, over whether or not they are entitle to adopt children, or who is legally the parents of the child when it is a child from a previous marriage, or who gets visitation rights in hospitals.
Instead of having to rewrite laws, wordings and definitions of various legal practices and create a whole new system of having to deal with these things, it's much simpler and more reasonable to simply expand what couples are acknowledged as married. Everyone still get's to follow their religious and personal beliefs, legal battles are simpler and more easily dealt with, and no one ends up worse off by doing so. This is an instance where the government makes things simpler and better, and is not interfering, but providing the option to an easier route in the legal realm for couples if they wish to seek it.
I'm fine with the creation of an
option to marry, but judging by this op-ed (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/24/opinion/24franke.html?_r=2&src=me&ref=general), it looks like the bill is an all-or-nothing type deal. I'm not in total agreement with this writer, either, because she's still arguing from the "marriage/civil union/partnership=special entitlements" perspective, but I do share her skepticism regarding the wording
There's also a difference between a law with wording from a negative liberty-based (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_liberty) perspective (you, as a person or institution, may not deny gays the right to marry if they so desire) versus a law with wording from a positive liberty-based (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_liberty) approach (we, the state, grant you resources in the form of a marriage certificate, legal perks, visitation rights, et. al. to elevate you to what we think is the same socioeconomic status as straight couples). I don't have an issue with the wording of the first law, but I do have a major problem with the second one, and I'll bet any amount of shekels that the law's wording/rationale more closely mirrors the latter. If I'm correct about the wording, New York is doing a lot more than simply acknowledging the union between a couple.
If there is one consolation, however, I am glad that this legislation was constitutional (passed at the state level through a legislature, not through some activist judge legislating through the bench, and provides places of worship with option to refuse marriages from taking place on their own property).
Quote from: Kayo on June 30, 2011, 09:39:03 AM
Yeah but, I'm pretty sure the divorce rate is much higher now. Don't quote me on that, but I'm almost positive that's the case. Marriage always used to seen more permanent...but now we have marriages that only last a few years. Or LESS.
1) Fewer religious overtones to the marital process, hence less "if I divorce, I'm a terrible sinner" mentality.
2) Media culture that promotes promiscuity, hedonism, and instant gratification, which affects marriages in multiple ways. One, people enter into serious relationships as soon as they feel that 'falling in love' butterflies feeling instead of spending a few months/years to get to know the other person better, because the love-at-first-sight phenomenon
always works in romantic comedies. Two, the behavior of cheating is portrayed as normal. Three, people don't understand that they're not going to agree with their partner on every issue, and there's going to be some fighting in relationships. Oftentimes people panic whenever they have heated words and assume that their relationship is failing instead of cooling down for a couple hours, apologizing, and moving on.
Is it for sure that marriage existed before religion, because hasn't religion in one form or another been around since practically the beginning of man?
Courtship is pretty common in mammals. Humans simply took it a step further.
Certain animals--I think beavers may be one--typically mate for life. That's more or less what marriage is was supposed to be. It's debatable whether it was made more significant for religious or for legal reasons.
sure is goopy in here
ew
Quote from: Custom on July 26, 2011, 11:59:54 PM
yeah i know right so gorss
I guess I better go return this ring then :(