NY passes gay marriage

[squarepusher]

how about Polygamy?

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

how about Polygamy?

All consenting adults should be allowed to marry.

 

[squarepusher]

All consenting adults should be allowed to marry.

so marriage is equivalent to buying a pack of cigarettes?

 

[madfoot]

so marriage is equivalent to buying a pack of cigarettes?

wat

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

so marriage is equivalent to buying a pack of cigarettes?

In that people should be able to choose to partake in both? Yes.

But really, that's a ridiculous question.

 

[YumYum]

Heterosexual parents are the cause of homosexuality. They keep having homosexual babies.

 

[Sola_Fide]

All consenting adults should be allowed to marry.

I'm not against the idea of consentual contracts, I'm against the idea that the government is the principal party in a socialized state marriage contract.

My position is private, yours is socialized. My position goes in the direction of taking the government out of marriage, your position expands involvment. I don't even know why this is an argument....

 

[Karsten]

Legalizing gay marriage does NOT mean more government! People who say this are only covering for their own social conservatism or religious fundamentalism!

That would be like saying legalizing marijuana means more government. Sure, it would mean more licences and regulations, but that's better than what it is now: BANNED!

 

[Karsten]

Not exactly. Not having a business license prevents you from exercising a natural right you should be free to exercise anyway. Not having a marriage license doesn't keep you from exercising any natural right; it only keeps you from special government privileges that shouldn't exist at all. It's more like banning some groups of people from receiving welfare benefits.

OH, you mean like the right to be able to visit your spouse in a hospital???

 

[Karsten]

Not exactly. Not having a business license prevents you from exercising a natural right you should be free to exercise anyway. Not having a marriage license doesn't keep you from exercising any natural right; it only keeps you from special government privileges that shouldn't exist at all. It's more like banning some groups of people from receiving welfare benefits.

I guess Ron Paul is wrong is wrong when he proposes tax breaks/credits for certain people. Since taxes shouldn't exist at all, then it's all simply special government privileges! *sarcasm*

 

[Karsten]

What people should be mindful of, is that it was the left-wing, almost militant, homosexual agenda that is hard-line egalitarian and socialist that ultimately pushed this bill through. They have a strong hate for traditionalists or conservatives, and will only tolerate Republicans to the extent that they shut-up, or support their Agenda. They constantly push for education about homosexuality in school, demand protected class status and are skilled in playing the victim card. They are NO friends of liberty, and should be opposed at every step. If you make a point that they can find a way to take personally, they will shout you down with an abundance of hatred.

Ever been to an anti-war rally? If we're supposed to never associate with leftists, better drop our principled anti-war stances as well!

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

I'm not against the idea of consentual contracts, I'm against the idea that the government is the principal party in a socialized state marriage contract.

My position is private, yours is socialized. My position goes in the direction of taking the government out of marriage, your position expands involvment. I don't even know why this is an argument....

I've said this numerous times. It isn't difficult to understand. The government has no place in marriage except to enforce contracts between consenting persons.

As it stands, your position cedes power to the State, to deny and grant benefits upon groups of its choosing. My position within the framework of a flawed practice would neutralize that issue.

But yeah, keep wailing about socialism and being dishonest.

 

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

The government banning gays from getting a marriage license is identical to if the government banned black people from getting a business license. Sure, we libertarians would like to do away with government licensing altogether, but so long as the government does license stuff, it ought to be non-discriminatory.

No, because no gender is exclusive to any specific race. Your argument fails. Hard.

 

[Southron]

Legalizing gay marriage does NOT mean more government! People who say this are only covering for their own social conservatism or religious fundamentalism!

That would be like saying legalizing marijuana means more government. Sure, it would mean more licences and regulations, but that's better than what it is now: BANNED!

I'm getting married in a couple months . Regardless of whether the
State of NC recognized the union between me and my wife I would still consider myself married.

My vows will be binding, not because of some legal contract, but because I make them before God.

If homosexuals were truly confident in their "marriage" then they shouldn't need the blessing of their State.

 

[Echoes]

I'm getting married in a couple months . Regardless of whether the
State of NC recognized the union between me and my wife I would still consider myself married.

My vows will be binding, not because of some legal contract, but because I make them before God.

If homosexuals were truly confident in their "marriage" then they shouldn't need the blessing of their State.

Spot on.

They NEED the State to give them an aura of legitimacy. Without the State, so called gay 'marriage' would fall flat on it's face (like it has for thousands of yrs).

 

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

I'm getting married in a couple months . Regardless of whether the
State of NC recognized the union between me and my wife I would still consider myself married.

My vows will be binding, not because of some legal contract, but because I make them before God.

If homosexuals were truly confident in their "marriage" then they shouldn't need the blessing of their State.

It's all about money. Abuses with employee benefits is imminent.

 

[ronaldo23]

Science says this? Really?

And disagreeing with that is bigoted hate speech?

Ron seems to disagree with the notion that homosexuality is necessarily "immoral," and he argues his science background has led him to have this nuanced stance. It's sort of funny in this interview to watch Ron cringe as the interviewer tries to bait Ron into agreeing with his homophobic positions and Ron is having none of it.

Ron states in clear words that as a physician, his medical background of science puts him in a position to not be judgemental on the morality of homosexuality, and that it is a complex issue for him to say homosexuality is "wrong" like you do.

 

[madfoot]

I'm not against the idea of consentual contracts, I'm against the idea that the government is the principal party in a socialized state marriage contract.

My position is private, yours is socialized. My position goes in the direction of taking the government out of marriage, your position expands involvment. I don't even know why this is an argument....

There is literally nothing socialist about marriage.

Statist, yes. But unless you're an an-cap, statism isn't inherently evil. You're going to have a hard time convincing me that tax breaks and special privileges for people who love each other very much is a bad thing. And when I say special privileges, I don't mean welfare; I mean being able to see your spouse in the hospital when he/she is dying.

No, because no gender is exclusive to any specific race. Your argument fails. Hard.

He wasn't equating them, he was comparing them. There is no fundamental distinction between denying interracial marriage and denying gay marriage, because there is no argument for either that stands up to scrutiny.

I'm getting married in a couple months . Regardless of whether the
State of NC recognized the union between me and my wife I would still consider myself married.

My vows will be binding, not because of some legal contract, but because I make them before God.

If homosexuals were truly confident in their "marriage" then they shouldn't need the blessing of their State.

They need the "blessings of the state" because of all the rights that special contract grants that they can't get otherwise. If you want to ban marriage, work out a preferable alternative, and then campaign for that.

 

[madfoot]

What people should be mindful of, is that it was the left-wing, almost militant, homosexual agenda that is hard-line egalitarian and socialist that ultimately pushed this bill through.

I wasn't aware egalitarianism is a bad thing. I thought we weren't socialists because socialism is inherently anti-egalitarianism. Am I wrong there?

And what the fuck is a "homosexual agenda"?

 

[idirtify]

The divorce rate among heteros implies that they detest marriage - until homos come along and want to partake. Then they act like the child who cries and fights when another kid picks up the toy they previously threw down; or the dog that growls at another for sniffing his food, even though he cannot possibly eat any more. Wouldn’t it be funny if the homos were actually better than the heteros at staying married?