Equal marriage rights passed in NY

[Phatscotty]

oh shit....

There goes the planet

What, now the planet is ruined?

it's a quote from planet of the apes (old school)

[Symmetry]

Homosexuals are about 1% of the population.

There are more people with 6 fingers. Perhaps we should pull an all night slobber knocker over those people trying to make everything that fits in 5 finger hands 6 finger compatible.

Or more accurately, suppose we tried to enact legislation banning 6 fingered people from wearing gloves as it poses a threat to traditional glove making.

They have mittens, after all.

[Phatscotty]

Brad, were you abused by a drunken uncle when you were little?

Scotty, comments like this^ are why the poll results are what they are

Modus Operandi for MMCC (media matters conquer club) Personal attacks never seem to get old, and always seem to make a great point.

[Phatscotty]

Homosexuals are about 1% of the population.

There are more people with 6 fingers. Perhaps we should pull an all night slobber knocker over those people trying to make everything that fits in 5 finger hands 6 finger compatible.

Or more accurately, suppose we tried to enact legislation banning 6 fingered people from wearing gloves as it poses a threat to traditional glove making.

They have mittens, after all.

just tape the secondary pinky to the nornal pinky and call it a day!

Seriously tho, 6 finger people can do everything 5 finger people can. It's just that 6 fingers are trying to reform society around them and make the other 99% of people support it.

I'm still with states rights on this one, but my overall opinion I am not persuaded that gays are discriminated against as far as marriage goes. Be together, live your life together, be happy. I will fight for gays if I think they are being discriminated against. I just don't think they are here.

Now, if they just want to use states rights as a platform for a constitutional amendment for gay marriage or force other states to change how those states live, well, I will be against that.

Marriage is a heterosexual institution, IMO. Other people can have other opinions, and I can have mine.

[Symmetry]

Homosexuals are about 1% of the population.

There are more people with 6 fingers. Perhaps we should pull an all night slobber knocker over those people trying to make everything that fits in 5 finger hands 6 finger compatible.

Or more accurately, suppose we tried to enact legislation banning 6 fingered people from wearing gloves as it poses a threat to traditional glove making.

They have mittens, after all.

just tape the secondary pinky to the nornal pinky and call it a day!

Seriously tho, 6 finger people can do everything 5 finger people can. It's just that 6 fingers are trying to reform society around them and make the other 99% of people support it.

I'm still with states rights on this one, but my overall opinion I am not persuaded that gays are discriminated against as far as marriage goes. Be together, live your life together, be happy. I will fight for gays if I think they are being discriminated against. I just don't think they are here.

Now, if they just want to use states rights as a platform for a constitutional amendment for gay marriage or force other states to change how those states live, well, I will be against that.

Marriage is a heterosexual institution, IMO. Other people can have other opinions, and I can have mine.

In my experience, and this is just generally speaking, when a person gets down to arguing that it's their opinion it's kind of a sign that they don't have any rational argument or justification left.

It's not always a bad position- sometimes it's worthy to say that it's a matter of personal belief rather than rational thought. I generally respect people who have religious faith far more than I respect those who try to explain the logic of their religious beliefs, for example. Faith is often a beautiful thing in its own right, and can be diminished when the suggestion is that there are rational reasons for a belief.

You are always welcome to your opinions, just as I am (I hope) welcome to have opinions on your opinions. When it comes to rational justifications, however, I will point out where I think they're flawed.

We cool?

[zebraman]

Forget the assholish Woodruff for one second and concentrate on what Symmetry is saying, guys. He's being rational and providing good reasons for why homosexuals should have the same access to marriage as anyone else. It's been probably one of the better and consistent messages I've read here.

[Nobunaga]

... The problem, in my opinion, is the legal status of marriage in this country.

... There was a time when marriage had nothing to do with government (local or otherwise). Now there are alimony obligations and tax breaks for filing as a married couple. I am sure there must be other legal advantages though none come to mind at the moment.

... If you could separate marriage from government, that might solve some problems (and certainly create a few as well). Just sayin'.

...

[Symmetry]

... The problem, in my opinion, is the legal status of marriage in this country.

... There was a time when marriage had nothing to do with government (local or otherwise). Now there are alimony obligations and tax breaks for filing as a married couple. I am sure there must be other legal advantages though none come to mind at the moment.

... If you could separate marriage from government, that might solve some problems (and certainly create a few as well). Just sayin'.

...

When was that time?

[Nobunaga]

... The problem, in my opinion, is the legal status of marriage in this country.

... There was a time when marriage had nothing to do with government (local or otherwise). Now there are alimony obligations and tax breaks for filing as a married couple. I am sure there must be other legal advantages though none come to mind at the moment.

... If you could separate marriage from government, that might solve some problems (and certainly create a few as well). Just sayin'.

...

When was that time?

... It developed slowly, beginning with the requirement to make public statements about upcoming marriage in the mid 1200's. Licenses and legal attachments followed about 2 centuries later.

...

[Symmetry]

... The problem, in my opinion, is the legal status of marriage in this country.

... There was a time when marriage had nothing to do with government (local or otherwise). Now there are alimony obligations and tax breaks for filing as a married couple. I am sure there must be other legal advantages though none come to mind at the moment.

... If you could separate marriage from government, that might solve some problems (and certainly create a few as well). Just sayin'.

...

When was that time?

... It developed slowly, beginning with the requirement to make public statements about upcoming marriage in the mid 1200's. Licenses and legal attachments followed about 2 centuries later.

...

So you're arguing for a return to those golden days between circa 1250 AD and 1450 AD when marriage had nothing to do with government?

[Nobunaga]

... The problem, in my opinion, is the legal status of marriage in this country.

... There was a time when marriage had nothing to do with government (local or otherwise). Now there are alimony obligations and tax breaks for filing as a married couple. I am sure there must be other legal advantages though none come to mind at the moment.

... If you could separate marriage from government, that might solve some problems (and certainly create a few as well). Just sayin'.

...

When was that time?

... It developed slowly, beginning with the requirement to make public statements about upcoming marriage in the mid 1200's. Licenses and legal attachments followed about 2 centuries later.

...

So you're arguing for a return to those golden days between circa 1250 AD and 1450 AD when marriage had nothing to do with government?

... No, I am not arguing that. I am saying that if nobody had any legal or monetary benefit from being married, those opposed to gays getting hitched have nothing to stand on but obvious "moral" grounds.

...

[Symmetry]

... The problem, in my opinion, is the legal status of marriage in this country.

... There was a time when marriage had nothing to do with government (local or otherwise). Now there are alimony obligations and tax breaks for filing as a married couple. I am sure there must be other legal advantages though none come to mind at the moment.

... If you could separate marriage from government, that might solve some problems (and certainly create a few as well). Just sayin'.

...

When was that time?

... It developed slowly, beginning with the requirement to make public statements about upcoming marriage in the mid 1200's. Licenses and legal attachments followed about 2 centuries later.

...

So you're arguing for a return to those golden days between circa 1250 AD and 1450 AD when marriage had nothing to do with government?

... No, I am not arguing that. I am saying that if nobody had any legal or monetary benefit from being married, those opposed to gays getting hitched have nothing to stand on but obvious "moral" grounds.

...

Ah- you're arguing that homosexuals shouldn't have certain rights because it would bolster arguments from people who don't think they should have those rights?

[rdsrds2120]

Homosexuals are about 1% of the population.

There are more people with 6 fingers. Perhaps we should pull an all night slobber knocker over those people trying to make everything that fits in 5 finger hands 6 finger compatible.

Actually, that's not very factual. There will almost never be a way to tell how man precisely it is. This article has many sources with many different numbers comparing them:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/6961/what-pe ... n-gay.aspx

Take it as it is.

-rd

[Phatscotty]

Homosexuals are about 1% of the population.

There are more people with 6 fingers. Perhaps we should pull an all night slobber knocker over those people trying to make everything that fits in 5 finger hands 6 finger compatible.

Actually, that's not very factual. There will almost never be a way to tell how man precisely it is. This article has many sources with many different numbers comparing them:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/6961/what-pe ... n-gay.aspx

Take it as it is.

-rd

Kinsey. Awesome!

10%-25%? Holy shit, that means I have a lot of gay friends!

[Nobunaga]

Ah- you're arguing that homosexuals shouldn't have certain rights because it would bolster arguments from people who don't think they should have those rights?

... Where am I arguing that homosexuals shouldn't have "certain rights"?

... You lost me. Please don't waste your time looking through posts because I know I've said nothing that would lead you to make this statement, lest of course I worded something terribly after too many beers. I am for equal rights, absolutely, and always have been.

...

[rdsrds2120]

Homosexuals are about 1% of the population.

There are more people with 6 fingers. Perhaps we should pull an all night slobber knocker over those people trying to make everything that fits in 5 finger hands 6 finger compatible.

Actually, that's not very factual. There will almost never be a way to tell how man precisely it is. This article has many sources with many different numbers comparing them:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/6961/what-pe ... n-gay.aspx

Take it as it is.

-rd

Kinsey. Awesome!

10%-25%? Holy shit, that means I have a lot of gay friends!

I didn't see that anywhere. If you read the whole article, you can get down to the summary near the end:

Whether increased acceptance of homosexuality has led to an upsurge in the number of positive media portrayals of gay characters or vice versa, one result seems to be that Americans now tend to overestimate the gay population in America. While most expert estimates place America's homosexual population at 10% or less, Americans tend to guess that the number is higher, around 20%.

-rd

[Phatscotty]

The Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law, a sexual orientation law and public policy think tank, estimates that 9 million (about 3.8%) of Americans identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender (2011). The institute also found that bisexuals make up 1.8% of the population, while 1.7% are gay or lesbian. Transgender adults make up 0.3% of the population.

http://gaylife.about.com/od/comingout/a/population.htm

[rdsrds2120]

The Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law, a sexual orientation law and public policy think tank, estimates that 9 million (about 3.8%) of Americans identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender (2011). The institute also found that bisexuals make up 1.8% of the population, while 1.7% are gay or lesbian. Transgender adults make up 0.3% of the population.

http://gaylife.about.com/od/comingout/a/population.htm

Further proving how hard it is to come up with an accurate number.

-rd

[Woodruff]

Forget the assholish Woodruff for one second and concentrate on what Symmetry is saying, guys.

Excuse me? What have I said here that at all deserves this kind of a comment about me? Are you honestly so lacking in the ability to discuss the issue that you have to resort to this? Are my points so profound that you admit to having no argument against them?

[Woodruff]

... The problem, in my opinion, is the legal status of marriage in this country.

... There was a time when marriage had nothing to do with government (local or otherwise). Now there are alimony obligations and tax breaks for filing as a married couple. I am sure there must be other legal advantages though none come to mind at the moment.

... If you could separate marriage from government, that might solve some problems (and certainly create a few as well). Just sayin'.

...

When was that time?

... It developed slowly, beginning with the requirement to make public statements about upcoming marriage in the mid 1200's. Licenses and legal attachments followed about 2 centuries later.

...

So you're arguing for a return to those golden days between circa 1250 AD and 1450 AD when marriage had nothing to do with government?

... No, I am not arguing that. I am saying that if nobody had any legal or monetary benefit from being married, those opposed to gays getting hitched have nothing to stand on but obvious "moral" grounds.
...

Not only that, but individuals such as myself wouldn't really give much of a crap about the issue either, since there would be no government-sponsored rights and benefits associated with marriage.

[Nobunaga]

Not only that, but individuals such as myself wouldn't really give much of a crap about the issue either, since there would be no government-sponsored rights and benefits associated with marriage.

... Thank you, Woody, for summing up my point in so few words. This is what I was trying to express (and obviously failed).

...

[PLAYER57832]

Homosexuals are about 1% of the population.

There are more people with 6 fingers. Perhaps we should pull an all night slobber knocker over those people trying to make everything that fits in 5 finger hands 6 finger compatible.

Actually, that's not very factual. There will almost never be a way to tell how man precisely it is. This article has many sources with many different numbers comparing them:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/6961/what-pe ... n-gay.aspx

Take it as it is.

-rd

Kinsey. Awesome!

10%-25%? Holy shit, that means I have a lot of gay friends!

I didn't see that anywhere. If you read the whole article, you can get down to the summary near the end:

Whether increased acceptance of homosexuality has led to an upsurge in the number of positive media portrayals of gay characters or vice versa, one result seems to be that Americans now tend to overestimate the gay population in America. While most expert estimates place America's homosexual population at 10% or less, Americans tend to guess that the number is higher, around 20%.

-rd

The 10% figure (which is the figure I believe that original study presented, not 20%) was exagerated.

That said, chances are you DO know more than a few homosexuals. Most people do know, associate with individuals who are homosexual and most of those most ardently against homosexuality are either quick to claim that "well they [the ones the speakers know] are exceptions". That or they seem to think the fact that one homosexual was less than perfectly nice to them growing up means that everyone in that category is also terrible... no matter that they would never make that judgement of others in a group to which they themselves belong.

[Woodruff]

Not only that, but individuals such as myself wouldn't really give much of a crap about the issue either, since there would be no government-sponsored rights and benefits associated with marriage.

... Thank you, Woody, for summing up my point in so few words. This is what I was trying to express (and obviously failed).

And now I'll get a bit more wordy (grin):
Either get rid of the legal benefits/rights of marriage entirely (so that it's purely a religious ceremony) or allow homosexuals and polygamists to be married. But really, one of those choices must be made.

Yes, I added polygamists...and before all you religious idiots whine about the "slippery slope", there is no logical, rational reason why polygamy is considered anathema. The ONLY grounds anyone has for it are "I don't like it", which tends to be (though not exclusively) a religious perspective. Homosexuality and polygamy do not in any way equate to incest or beastiality, due to the ability/inability to consent in the relevant relationships. If you want to argue the polygamy point, please do so as a separate entity to the homosexuality issue.

[Symmetry]

Not only that, but individuals such as myself wouldn't really give much of a crap about the issue either, since there would be no government-sponsored rights and benefits associated with marriage.

... Thank you, Woody, for summing up my point in so few words. This is what I was trying to express (and obviously failed).

And now I'll get a bit more wordy (grin):
Either get rid of the legal benefits/rights of marriage entirely (so that it's purely a religious ceremony) or allow homosexuals and polygamists to be married. But really, one of those choices must be made.

Yes, I added polygamists...and before all you religious idiots whine about the "slippery slope", there is no logical, rational reason why polygamy is considered anathema. The ONLY grounds anyone has for it are "I don't like it", which tends to be (though not exclusively) a religious perspective. Homosexuality and polygamy do not in any way equate to incest or beastiality, due to the ability/inability to consent in the relevant relationships. If you want to argue the polygamy point, please do so as a separate entity to the homosexuality issue.

Unrelated issues- states and countries that have passed laws granting homosexuals the freedom to marry have not come any further in favour or against granting or banning polygamy.

It's an interesting idea in theory, but just doesn't hold up in actual practice. It's simply unrelated. Indeed, if you'll bear with me for a second, I'd actually reverse that idea and say that countries that allow polygamy tend to be countries that are more strongly opposed to homosexual marriage, or homosexuals in general.

There's a map, here.

[Phatscotty]

To be fair, BB, casually using the Advanced Search option suggests that you throw around the words "homophobe" and "bigot" quite a bit. If I may defer to the legendary Mr Mustard:

Yes Jenos, you'll soon find you can't debate against the insane

Said the man who spends his entire life crying that people are calling him a bigot.

Nice double-standards you have there, may we share them?

Nurse Ratched!! He's off his meds again! Get the restraints!!!

You do seem to make a habit out of portraying yourself as a lonely, persecuted voice of reason against a largely non-existent horde of people accusing you of bigotry and homophobia. It seems to be one of the first cards you play, in fact, before you inevitably say something along the lines of calling homosexuality "lustful ass piracy", which, of course, is not homophobic or bigotted at all, lest I be seen to be adding to your persecution complex.

Well hell, I'm flattered that you find me so interesting as to delve into the past. Personally, I'm not interested but natty might probably finds it attractive so I wish the two of you good luck. I'm sure you'll both be perfectly happy in New York. The Mustard post was in quite a good thread. It wasn't much longer after that post that Mustard did go off the deep end and got himself banned from this site. Looks like I was vindicated after all. As usual, when the poll results go south for the oppressives they try to deflect it to something other than what they originally were asking. What's next, Symmetry - more advanced searches showing that I don't like other liberal positions? Wow, ya really got me there chief!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amPm9o9keHk