New York Senate Legalizes Gay Marriage

• Sekwaf wrote on 2011-06-25 03:47
  I personally don't believe it should be called "marriage", because that term should be reserved for a man and a woman. I think they're being a bit excessive saying that gays are denied basic right because they can't apply a specific term to themselves. However I think that parters in a "Civil Union" should have all the rights of parters by marriage. Just my two cents.
• Tarvos wrote on 2011-06-25 04:01
  Glad there's some progress. As a New Yorker, I'm glad to see the Senate passing this. Just because they passed it though doesn't mean it's legalized yet. The house has to pass it as well, and if they pass a different version, it goes onto another committee. Or did the house already pass it? The article didn't indicate that, but I'm assuming it didn't seeing as it specifically says the Senate...
  
  I'm straight myself, but, I fully support gay marriage. It's not right to call it something different in my opinion. If they get the same benefits, they should get the same title. I don't get why some people think gays getting married sullies the name. It's the same damn thing regardless of who's getting married, and it doesn't effect existing heterosexual marriages in the slightest.
  
  I'm kind of on the fence about forcing churches to do gay marriage however. I understand that it's very hateful to deny gays marriage, but, it's simply their religion. This country was founded on free thinking, and that might be infringing on that. No matter how counter intuitive to freedom of expression that is... This is in terms of law though. In my personal opinion however, discrimination as such doesn't warrant freedom of their religious expression. Then again, it's not like religion invented marriage, as already stated in above posts. Naturally I find this to be a conundrum...
• Phunkie wrote on 2011-06-25 04:02
  DUDE. I'M SOOO TURNED ON.
  
  POLITICS TURN ME ONNNNN SOOOO BAD WHEN THEY'RE LIKE THIS.
• Kollin wrote on 2011-06-25 04:03

  Quote from Osayidan;488979:

  Good to see progress, even though I disapprove of marriage as a whole due to its religious affiliations, and I despise religion.

  
  
  this 9000%+. still for 2 men or 2 women to marry annoys the hell out of the religious folks, so whatever to give them the middle finger is good in my mind.
• Okitaru wrote on 2011-06-25 04:09
  @Selithia Saying marriage existed before a religious context was inside of it is ignorant and an ill-educated statement. Although in America, and many other places, it is treated as a purely "Christian" or "Catholic" ceremony, which I don't quite approve of, regardless of my own religious beliefs. Doesn't change that it existed for a man and a woman and that's what it is. (I'm not going to go cry, or protest, the world changes as it will. I'm happy for those who I know who are happy over this, and wish them luck, so don't go thinking I'm anti-gay or anything.)
  
  And if you're calling titles "equality" I don't even know what you're thinking. IMO, gay's being touchy about "being changed" because they were "born gay" should choose to respect the same boundaries they have a fit over when the roles are reversed.
  
  Marriage has benefits, that should be allowed to any two people who choose each other as partners, it would be easier to pass it as something else instead of passing it as marriage, we might have had it years ago if they just did that.
  
  BUT, I have to wonder, do you think there will be denial of services from chapels to gays? I mean since the ceremony is fairly based as Christian or Catholic, and many parts of it are based on a man and a woman. Or maybe it's all done through the government, then I suppose that kills the thought of it. I'm quite interested to see what randomness may unfold from that. (In the end I'm taking this in an atheist sociology perspective to enjoy what happens.)
  
  Seriously, Congrats getting it passed though~
• Mama wrote on 2011-06-25 04:12

  Quote from Selithia;488985:

  Marriage grants certain rights that civil unions still don't to this day, not to mention the fact that marriage existed outside of religious beliefs for much, much longer than Christians want to believe.
  
  Not wanting equality because it might change a word around is, uh, a bit weak.
  
  
  
  
  
  Lucky for you, then, that marriage has been a legal institution much longer than it's been a religious institution! Marriage isn't a Christian concept. They just did a hell of a job co-opting it.

  
  
  

  Quote from Sekwaf;489021:

  I personally don't believe it should be called "marriage", because that term should be reserved for a man and a woman. I think they're being a bit excessive saying that gays are denied basic right because they can't apply a specific term to themselves. However I think that parters in a "Civil Union" should have all the rights of parters by marriage. Just my two cents.

  
  
  I agree with this wholeheartedly. As someone has said before, it's absurd that two men wishing to get married have less legal rights than a guy getting drunk and marrying a stripper in Vegas.
• Cynic wrote on 2011-06-25 04:12
  Fin-a****in-ly.
  
  So now when I move there I can get married.
  ME HAPPY.
  
  Also, guys, don't bring debates up in hurr.
  this isn't a "your view on it being legalized" thread. It's more of a "celebrate it being legalized" thread.
  If this was a debate, we would have made this /before/ it was legalized, not after.
  Srsly.
  
  Shush and enjoy it, or gtfo.
  Some people.. /shakes head
• TA wrote on 2011-06-25 04:18
  There's no reason the term marriage should just be for a man and a woman.
  
  I can't word this the right way, so it may not make much sense. But, it's a bit prejudice to say that gay couples should have to say they're civilly joined or some crap, when normal couples can say they're married. Marriage has gone back long before we wrote the term as "a man and a woman."
  
  Same sex marriage dates back as far as Ancient Egypt (Kemet). Recognition of it in Western culture dates back to early in the Middle Ages. Polygamist marriage dates back to long before recorded history.(1)(2)
  
  The fact that now because of certain dominant religions, people believe they can impose their beliefs on everyone... Well, it's a bit prideful and arrogant. Christians, Islam and Judaism didn't invent marriage. They should have no say over the word nor the use thereof. Church and State should remain separated, and when we start trying to impose Religious beliefs into our State beliefs, then that's when bad things start happening.
  
  Religions can control the marriage ceremonies themselves. Non-religious marriages should be able to marry with their own type of ceremony that they happen to desire or with none at all, if they should so wish it. Personally, while I'm not religious myself nor would I want a a Christian wedding with all that it implies religiously and all of the spouted religious nonsense, I think ceremony is good. Like the ceremony in Braveheart. Beautiful, yet not really religious. Or it may have been, I don't really remember. But none of that is really the point.
  
  The point of marriage is a recognition of one another as a couple between both yourselves, society, and recognition of that position by the State, whereupon certain legal rights shall be granted.
  
  It's marriage, and people shouldn't be such prudes over how the word's used.
  
  Honestly, the definition should be changed to "between two sentient beings" or some such, in such a wording that would allow future marriages with intelligent extraterrestrial life. But, not animals... Beings capable of communication, reason, and whatnot. May as well future-proof it. That's what I think anyways.
• Selithia wrote on 2011-06-25 06:06
  I'm not sure why people are worried about churches being 'forced' to do anything anyway. If you're gay, why the hell would you get married at a religious institute that hates you? Simple; you wouldn't. It's a non-issue they keep brining up to scare all the 'god fearin' folk into supporting the second-class-inization (totally a word now) of homosexuals.
  
  Anyway, there's literally no reason not to give them marriage rights beyond "but I don't wanna", whether it is because you want to play semantics with the word marriage or you just think gays are icky, because even the damn bible is pretty up in the air about it, what with half the text against it being either in the same sentence as "don't eat shellfish" or being entirely made up for US versions of the bible.
  
  There is no debate. There's literally no defensible position to be against gay marriage. The sooner the rest of the US realizes this, the better. Then it can spread to the UK and Australia.
• Mama wrote on 2011-06-25 07:01
  Hmm..
  A person of religious stance should take their pick, since that's how it works, apparently.
  Marriage is:
  
  

  A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)
  B. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)
  C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)
  D. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)
  E. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)
  F. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)
  G. In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your town, it is required that you get your dad drunk and have sex with him (even if he had previously offered you up as a sex toy to men young and old), tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of course, this rule applies only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36)

• Brock wrote on 2011-06-25 07:23

  G. In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your town, it is required that you get your dad drunk and have sex with him (even if he had previously offered you up as a sex toy to men young and old), tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of course, this rule applies only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36)

  
  
  LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL.
  
  Member of the Decade: Mama