Conquer Club

Sadly the UK is lagging behind, but I hope this is another step towards equal rights.

Fascinating article on the back-room decision making published in the NYTimes:

Behind N.Y. Gay Marriage, an Unlikely Mix of Forces

Symmetry wrote:Sadly the UK is lagging behind, but I hope this is another step towards equal rights.

Fascinating article on the back-room decision making published in the NYTimes:

Behind N.Y. Gay Marriage, an Unlikely Mix of Forces

So will this make them happy or will they continue to bitch?

bedub1 wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Sadly the UK is lagging behind, but I hope this is another step towards equal rights.

Fascinating article on the back-room decision making published in the NYTimes:

Behind N.Y. Gay Marriage, an Unlikely Mix of Forces

So will this make them happy or will they continue to bitch?

Who's that Bedub? Who are you deferring to when you say "them"? It's tough to answer your question if you don't specify. Off hand I'd say that this decision will make a lot of people happy, some people unhappy, and cause a fair amount of bitching. But that's obvious.

Any chance of some clarification Bedub?

Symmetry wrote:

bedub1 wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Sadly the UK is lagging behind, but I hope this is another step towards equal rights.

Fascinating article on the back-room decision making published in the NYTimes:

Behind N.Y. Gay Marriage, an Unlikely Mix of Forces

So will this make them happy or will they continue to bitch?

Who's that Bedub? Who are you deferring to when you say "them"? It's tough to answer your question if you don't specify. Off hand I'd say that this decision will make a lot of people happy, some people unhappy, and cause a fair amount of bitching. But that's obvious.

Any chance of some clarification Bedub?

lol...NOPE. I love unclear-antecedents.

I'm just hoping everybody will stfu. I'm tired of listening to all the bitching and whining and complaining etc.

bedub1 wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

bedub1 wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Sadly the UK is lagging behind, but I hope this is another step towards equal rights.

Fascinating article on the back-room decision making published in the NYTimes:

Behind N.Y. Gay Marriage, an Unlikely Mix of Forces

So will this make them happy or will they continue to bitch?

Who's that Bedub? Who are you deferring to when you say "them"? It's tough to answer your question if you don't specify. Off hand I'd say that this decision will make a lot of people happy, some people unhappy, and cause a fair amount of bitching. But that's obvious.

Any chance of some clarification Bedub?

lol...NOPE. I love unclear-antecedents.

I'm just hoping everybody will stfu. I'm tired of listening to all the bitching and whining and complaining etc.

On the down side: I fear you'll be disappointed. Plenty more whining to come over this decision.

On the up side: You've been introduced to politics!

What about the left and right sides?

Army of GOD wrote:What about the left and right sides?

Read the article, they ended up agreeing, at least enough to form a majority.

Army of GOD wrote:What about the left and right sides?

Several of the more conservative folks went along when an amendment was added ensuring that religious insitutions and religious affiliated institutions would not have to provide services for these weddings. That is, no clergy has to officiate a marriage even of someone in another faith, but this ensures that even, say, a K of C hall can say they won't rent to homosexual marriages.

Every step to truly equality between people is a good one.
People, specifically religious power figures, should realize and accept that this world is heading for equal rights for gay people, that even if they are discriminating bastards, future generations will not be, and that struggling against the passing of time only causes more suffering, anger, and hate.

natty_dread wrote:Religious leaders throw hissy fits

I hope people will see that this threat is nothing more than "you can't come to my party anymore".

Politicians shouldn't be scared of this christian bluff. I do assume the moderate and liberal christians will see through this childish action of the Church, and realize that a politician who is banned over the 'gay' issue can still be a good christian, even if some conservative bishop is spewing lies by telling people the politician will go to hell.

karelpietertje wrote:
Politicians shouldn't be scared of this christian bluff. I do assume the moderate and liberal christians will see through this childish action of the Church, and realize that a politician who is banned over the 'gay' issue can still be a good christian, even if some conservative bishop is spewing lies by telling people the politician will go to hell.

Its not a Christian bluff, its very unChristian right wing black mail.

See, for all they want to tout the constitution and "freedom", those "rights" disapear the minute anyone disagrees with them . (and yes, there is the exact same narrow-mindedness on the far left... its just that they have largely been silenced of late.


I love how all of a sudden people asking for EQUAL rights are somehow "estremist activists".

Christ might not have endorsed homosexuality, but he also failed to endorse Buddhism, use of doctors, etc, etc,... yet we seem to have no problem living with all of those things.

Cuomo didn't have the greatest speech, but he / his speech writers did have a line stuck out when I caught it:

"We've reached a new level, of social justice this evening. Marriage equality. I said the to the legislators, you look at the first word: marriage. But it's really about the second: equality."

Link to Video of speech: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cczVO7gjtzk


--Andy

bedub1 wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Sadly the UK is lagging behind, but I hope this is another step towards equal rights.

Fascinating article on the back-room decision making published in the NYTimes:

Behind N.Y. Gay Marriage, an Unlikely Mix of Forces

So will this make them happy or will they continue to bitch?

If by "they", you are referring to Night Strike and yourself, my guess is that you will continue to bitch.

Just curious, but how is marriage a right?

What right is infringed upon for a man who can't marry man, or a woman a woman, or a dude and his goat?



My two cents. Fine I am glad this is a state issue and states can decide. More power to NY.

Quick story what I saw when I was in Weiners district. We were at our hotel, around midnight toastin drinks outside, and about 20 dudes jump out of 4 minivans, all wearing maroon suit coats and sun-glasses. I caught a glimpse of the pins they were wearin but hadn't seen it before. (Mormons?) We joked they were the secret service and the one guy had better stash his K2!

The next day, they are all out on the corner with traditional marriage only signs, and honk if you support em. So I gave him a honk, and the guy in the back seat, a district manager from Rhode Island says all loud "If I was drivin I'd have driven right over those fucks!" I told him "there is no need for murder today, and that I'm glad I am driving and not going to prison." I did feel awkward after that, and then I realized he was hittin on me.

You should have heard this guy. "don't knock it till you try it!" "I did it once" couple more drinks "yeah I did it 2 or 3 times" end of the night his friend tells me "he's as gay as the day is long" He challenged me to phone numbers and it was a quick fix for me to let him know I am straight and there are no questions there, walked up to thee hottest chik in the bar and I made her laugh off the bat and we hung with her for about an hour and man was he jealous! So weird but twas the best of times.

Phatscotty wrote:Just curious, but how is marriage a right?

It isn't marriage itself, it is all of the government-enforced rights that are specifically tied into marriage.

Phatscotty wrote:What right is infringed upon for a man who can't marry man, or a woman a woman, or a dude and his goat?

Yes, the first effort is always to tie homosexuality into equality with beastiality. Good move. What's next, Phatscotty...is this where you claim it's the same as pedophilia?

Phatscotty wrote:Quick story what I saw when I was in Weiners district. We were at our hotel, around midnight toastin drinks outside, and about 20 dudes jump out of 4 minivans, all wearing maroon suit coats and sun-glasses. I caught a glimpse of the pins they were wearin but hadn't seen it before. (Mormons?) We joked they were the secret service and the one guy had better stash his K2!

The next day, they are all out on the corner with traditional marriage only signs, and honk if you support em. So I gave him a honk, and the guy in the back seat, a district manager from Rhode Island says all loud "If I was drivin I'd have driven right over those fucks!" I told him "there is no need for murder today, and that I'm glad I am driving and not going to prison." I did feel awkward after that, and then I realized he was hittin on me.

You should have heard this guy. "don't knock it till you try it!" "I did it once" couple more drinks "yeah I did it 2 or 3 times" end of the night his friend tells me "he's as gay as the day is long" He challenged me to phone numbers and it was a quick fix for me to let him know I am straight and there are no questions there, walked up to thee hottest chik in the bar and I made her laugh off the bat and we hung with her for about an hour and man was he jealous! So weird but twas the best of times.

Yeah, and you've got a lot of black friends too.

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Just curious, but how is marriage a right?

It isn't marriage itself, it is all of the government-enforced rights that are specifically tied into marriage.

government enforced rights? so...this is all about benefits?

The gov't has an interest in rewarding people who produce new tax payers. There is a reason for it.

Phatscotty wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Just curious, but how is marriage a right?

It isn't marriage itself, it is all of the government-enforced rights that are specifically tied into marriage.

government enforced rights? so...this is all about benefits?

The gov't has an interest in rewarding people who produce new tax payers. There is a reason for it.

yes because marriage is the only way that happens, thats also the only purpose of mariage. Also homosexuals are incapable of reproduction amirght? or amiright?

So, does an 8 year old have a right to get married? 14 year old? 16?

Baron Von PWN wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Just curious, but how is marriage a right?

It isn't marriage itself, it is all of the government-enforced rights that are specifically tied into marriage.

government enforced rights? so...this is all about benefits?

The gov't has an interest in rewarding people who produce new tax payers. There is a reason for it.

yes because marriage is the only way that happens, thats also the only purpose of mariage. Also homosexuals are incapable of reproduction amirght? or amiright?

they are unable to create a child together.

Phatscotty wrote:So, does an 8 year old have a right to get married? 14 year old? 16?

no because they are minors, though I believe 16 year olds may marry with parental permission. Same reason we don't let them buy alcohol ect. Not sure what this has to do with Homosexuals though.

Phatscotty wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Just curious, but how is marriage a right?

It isn't marriage itself, it is all of the government-enforced rights that are specifically tied into marriage.

government enforced rights? so...this is all about benefits?
The gov't has an interest in rewarding people who produce new tax payers. There is a reason for it.

No, the government does NOT any longer have an interest in rewarding people who produce new taxpayers. We're not dying off. In fact, we're living far longer. For your premise to carry any weight, the government would be promoting children being borne out of wedlock!

But, just as you're trying to do with the welfare thread, try to excuse it away as more than just "Phatscotty wants government interference where it suits him" if you can...we all can already see that you're just a government-interventionist to the hilt. You may as well stop trying to hide it.

Phatscotty wrote:So, does an 8 year old have a right to get married? 14 year old? 16?

See, I knew your next step was toward pedophilia. See, homosexuality obviously equates to beastiality and pedophilia in Phatscotty's mind. I am saddened by your willful, intentional ignorance.

Phatscotty wrote:So, does an 8 year old have a right to get married? 14 year old? 16?

No, but that's because they are far too young to be able to make that decision at that age. Hence the laws about statutory rape. You're giving some nice gymnastics all to deny homosexuals the right to be recognised as equal and this should continue to be quite interesting.

Phatscotty wrote:
The gov't has an interest in rewarding people who produce new tax payers. There is a reason for it.

That's a sad definition of marriage. I don't know how much attention you give to my posts- usually you seem to do your best to dodge them, but just give 10 seconds to thinking about your last post. Stop and look at it. For ten seconds. That's all.

Did you see anything? Did anything come to mind?

You might have noticed that it's the so called "defenders" of "traditional" marriage that want to make it "separate but equal", or who claim that it's not about love.

How about we allow gay people the right to marry and don't have some sort of separate but equal system when it comes to the rights granted by that marriage?

That's not unreasonable, is it?

Symmetry wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:
The gov't has an interest in rewarding people who produce new tax payers. There is a reason for it.

That's a sad definition of marriage. I don't know how much attention you give to my posts- usually you seem to do your best to dodge them, but just give 10 seconds to thinking about your last post. Stop and look at it. For ten seconds. That's all.

Did you see anything? Did anything come to mind?

You might have noticed that it's the so called "defenders" of "traditional" marriage that want to make it "separate but equal", or who claim that it's not about love.

How about we allow gay people the right to marry and don't have some sort of separate but equal system when it comes to the rights granted by that marriage?

That's not unreasonable, is it?

Phatscotty probably has homosexual friends, so it's ok.

Symmetry wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:
The gov't has an interest in rewarding people who produce new tax payers. There is a reason for it.

That's a sad definition of marriage.

That is not a definition of marriage at all. It's a specific reason for one of the many benefits that come with marriage.