Fuck New York

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
51
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
I've got an even better idea- why not outlaw marriage altogether UNTIL the woman can provide a positive pregnancy test? The marriage would of course have to be dissolved when the last child that comes as issue of said marriage reaches the age of majority, since the defining reason for marriage is child rearing, not love between partners.
 

DaveyR

Retired Moderator
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Posts
5,422
Media
0
Likes
30
Points
258
Location
Northumberland
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
madame_zora said:
I've got an even better idea- why not outlaw marriage altogether UNTIL the woman can provide a positive pregnancy test? The marriage would of course have to be dissolved when the last child that comes as issue of said marriage reaches the age of majority, since the defining reason for marriage is child rearing, not love between partners.

Brilliant idea - gets my vote. My vote is not worth anything though as a) I am not American and b) I am Gay - Damn

Oh and Stronzo I changed my signature just for you.
 

B_Stronzo

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2005
Posts
4,588
Media
0
Likes
130
Points
183
Location
Plimoth Plantation
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
zora?

My "bestest" friend (who I think I told you about on the telephone) in all this world is a childhood female friend from back when I was nine or so. She's now married to a great guy and they have a youngish son. She and her husband have been great advocates for my boyfriend and me.

HOWEVEVER- though a self-proclaimed "lapsed Roman Catholic", she said "you guys marrying is where I draw the line" when the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled in favor of gay marriage. I was in shock. I mean my heart literally sank.

Here's someone I'd have put money on would have been totally in favor of my having the option of marrying my partner. Yet no. When I pressed her for a reason and admittedly got rather outspoken she said "I just don't believe in it. Marriage is only for a man and a a woman"!:eek:

No amount of reason or logic would bring any sort of real response other than something similar to "I just don't agree with it".

Fuck ............. what AM I missing here? Is this shit this ingrained by religious conditioning? I say yes.

I'm telling you it took some to put that statement behind me and carry on the same afterwards.

I think this issue is the real key to outing those who're truly on the side of equal rights versus those who feign the ideal of an all-inclusive society.

By the way - I think your idea rocks. I don't think I'd marry "you know who" but I'll be a monkey's uncle if I'll allow them to deny me the right.
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
dcwrestlefan said:
i only ask one thing from the other side. give me a logical explanation why it matters to your straight marriage if jane and sue or mark and steve get married. please. i wanna hear it.

We're not the other side....you are, remember.:tongue:

Logical explanation:

Easy, the NY appellant court just said it's wrong, oh wait that's not logical, oh yes the bible, err no that's even less logical. Dunno, ya got me. :rolleyes:

How much it matters (J&S v M&S):

About 0.00% of Sweet FA.

Though I question the sanity of anyone getting married given it's lamentable track record. It wouldn't stop me from doing so if it felt right, which probably should worry me.:eek:
 

B_Stronzo

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2005
Posts
4,588
Media
0
Likes
130
Points
183
Location
Plimoth Plantation
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Daverock said:
Brilliant idea - gets my vote. My vote is not worth anything though as a) I am not American and b) I am Gay - Damn

Oh and Stronzo I changed my signature just for you.

Thanks Dave. But make it for all of us!!

I want you to get down and kiss that English earth beneath your feet David. Your decision to stay in "Merry Olde" was a wise one.
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
madame_zora said:
I've got an even better idea- why not outlaw marriage altogether UNTIL the woman can provide a positive pregnancy test? The marriage would of course have to be dissolved when the last child that comes as issue of said marriage reaches the age of majority, since the defining reason for marriage is child rearing, not love between partners.

Well it's logical, original and reasonable and thus, clearly has no place in this area of the current US judicial process, or so it would appear.:rolleyes:
 

DaveyR

Retired Moderator
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Posts
5,422
Media
0
Likes
30
Points
258
Location
Northumberland
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Stronzo said:
zora?



Fuck ............. what AM I missing here? Is this shit this ingrained by religious conditioning? I say yes.

I think you really hit the nail on the head here.



By the way - I think your idea rocks. I don't think I'd marry "you know who" but I'll be a monkey's uncle if I'll allow them to deny me the right.

Too right me and my partner of 19 years could get married here in Spain or back in the UK but we decided against it (neither of us suit white). As you say though we would not allow them to deny us the right.
 

DaveyR

Retired Moderator
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Posts
5,422
Media
0
Likes
30
Points
258
Location
Northumberland
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Stronzo said:
Thanks Dave. But make it for all of us!!

Well I consider that you are speaking up for all of us including those who cannot be bothered so in essence my signature is for all of us.
 

LeeEJ

Sexy Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Posts
1,444
Media
2
Likes
25
Points
258
Location
DC
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Stronzo said:
Fuck ............. what AM I missing here? Is this shit this ingrained by religious conditioning? I say yes.
I say yes, too. There's absolutely no other reason. Whenever someone says that they're against it, they ALWAYS go back to religious reasons. I have never, ever heard otherwise. Ever.
 

AlteredEgo

Mythical Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2006
Posts
19,176
Media
37
Likes
26,249
Points
368
Location
Hello (Sud-Ouest, Burkina Faso)
Sexuality
No Response
I have a migraine, and I'm off to bed. But I knew I'd forget to post this if I didn't do it right away.

Stronzo, I hope you'll forgive a slight breach of our agreement. I'm sure you will as I come here actually on the same side of the argument, for once.

Here's what I want to say. The most important thing here is to not lose sight of the main objective. Stronzo, you seem to be almost in despair in your early posts in this thread, and that's not like you. Clearly, the next step is to do just what the court suggests and approach the legislators. If I'm not mistaken, (and I could be) most of them are up for re-election. Now is the time to apply the pressure, now before September primaries. Get those petitions and letters out. Organize disruptive, performance art-like demonstrations. Put on your marching shoes. The court says the state constitution has to be changed. Do not despair. Get it changed.

I'm going to go back to ignoring you now. :wink:
 

D_Sheffield Thongbynder

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2006
Posts
2,020
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
183
Similar to the illogical opposition to gay marriage is gay adoption on the grounds that children will suffer emotionally without having a male and female to parent them. The information I read showed that the percentage of gay children raised by straight and gay couples is nearly identical. Clearly parents' sexual preference, then, has nothing to do with their children's sexual preferences. One child of a gay couple had an interesting insight. He said that it was indeed harder on children of gay parents but not for the reasons one would assume. According to him, they feel a pressing need to be better adjusted, better achievers, etc., than children of m/f parents, and that self-induced pressure can be crushing sometimes. If gay marriage is ever going to be accepted by our predominantly straight society, the public will need to be exposed to similar information that has nothing to do with scripture or homophobic ranting. If data in Massachusetts, for instance, can show that gay marriages have the same likelihood of success (in terms of longevity) that straight marriages have, the widely held notion that the gay lifestyle is all about promiscuity will be dispelled. Gays -- whether it be fair or not -- have to educate mainstream America to access what should be theirs by birthright. The fundies will never be convinced that gays are anything short of evil, so there is little sense in concentrating efforts to debate them. Most straight people decide for themselves what is fair and then head to voting booths. If they can better understand gays, then they will vote according to their educated opinions, not the fundamentalist line. I speak from experience: Growing up in the homophobic Midwest, I accepted most of the typical misconceptions about gays. Only when I befriended a gay man did I learn that there is little difference between us. I understand the rage and hurt that accompany the exclusion from legal rights, but I also think that eloquent gay spokesmen like some of those on this site will try to get past the rage and make an effort to educate more of us.
 

LeeEJ

Sexy Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Posts
1,444
Media
2
Likes
25
Points
258
Location
DC
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
COLJohn said:
If data in Massachusetts, for instance, can show that gay marriages have the same likelihood of success (in terms of longevity) that straight marriages have, the widely held notion that the gay lifestyle is all about promiscuity will be dispelled.
How about turning that notion upon itself? Say that marriage encourages gays to abandon the promiscuity that they all supposedly engage in regularly?

I'm pretty much reaching for anything that could help.
 

D_Sheffield Thongbynder

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2006
Posts
2,020
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
183
LeeEJ said:
How about turning that notion upon itself? Say that marriage encourages gays to abandon the promiscuity that they all supposedly engage in regularly?

I'm pretty much reaching for anything that could help.

If data can be produced to support that, sure. Opinions are not in short supply; facts are. IMO, many people need either first hand experience or reliable information before coming to a conclusion.
 

Dr Rock

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2005
Posts
3,577
Media
0
Likes
23
Points
258
Location
who lives in the east 'neath the willow tree? Sex
Sexuality
Unsure
Rikter8 said:
As long as your union is blessed in the church of your choice, by a Priest, that's all that counts.
why do you need your choice of partner to be ratified by some nonsensical body of superstitions and lies? religiously-sanctioned marriage is as retarded a concept as state-sanctioned marriage, and for most of the same reasons. what if a priest refuses to "bless your union"? does that then make your commitment somehow less valid or sustainable, just because you can't get it rubber-stamped by some farcical external authority?

this kind of stubborn refusal by people to assume the highest authority and responsibility for their own lives themselves is the reason why we have a tiny clique of incestuous bigots handing down laws that, for example, forbid people of the same gender to marry. why let others tell you what you can and can't do? do they know what's best for you better than you do yourself? clearly, as sickening instances like this continue to demonstrate, the answer is NO. wake up and start governing yourselves - don't just sit there and whine when the authorities that you have permitted and endorsed through your own inaction fuck you over.
 

playainda336

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Oct 25, 2005
Posts
1,991
Media
223
Likes
2,357
Points
443
Location
Greensboro (North Carolina, United States)
Verification
View
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
Let me start off by saying that in my Philosophy class last semester, I couldn't think of one good reason why gay marriage should be banned. I came to the conclusion by the end of the semester that if two gay people wish to be together and announce it infront of the world, then by all means do it. It seems that's all marriage is about anyway...announcing yourself to the world. I have low opinions on marriage anyway, but that's another discussion.

Stronzo said:
*blah blah blah*
Hate begats more hate...vent, but let's not get violent over the issue.

Stronzo said:
Now then. Let's give it some PERSPECTIVE:

*********************************************



10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage Will Ruin Society

(due credit to my friend David in Provincetown who I love dearly)
  • Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
Well, I'd say it's natural as most behaviors are...
  • Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
Two preposterous assumptions. Just because someone slaps themselves on the hour every hour and you see it will not make you want to slap yourself as well. And being tall is concretely and physically genetic.
  • Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
I...Uh...I don't even know how to reply to that one without laughing...LoL
  • Straight marriage has been around long time and hasn’t changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
  • Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Brittany Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
Sad...all sad. But so true.
  • Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.
This is one of the exact arguements that came up in my philosophy class. Again, I couldn't think of one good reason why it wouldn't work.
  • Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
Probably not true...I think it's already been proven that gay parents have had straight kids or something. *shrugs*...whatever.
  • Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.
Well, it's not. But hey...that's what "separation of Church and State" is for.
  • Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
It's kinda sad that people really believe this to...
  • Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
Norms just take time to change. I'm with Bronx on this one. If you don't like it, then "Take it to the House." Get those people "not elected". Legislative due process. Nothing said in America is final. Alas, I'm not here to argue. I'm gone.

COLJohn said:
Gays -- whether it be fair or not -- have to educate mainstream America to access what should be theirs by birthright. The fundies will never be convinced that gays are anything short of evil, so there is little sense in concentrating efforts to debate them. Most straight people decide for themselves what is fair and then head to voting booths. If they can better understand gays, then they will vote according to their educated opinions, not the fundamentalist line. I speak from experience: Growing up in the homophobic Midwest, I accepted most of the typical misconceptions about gays. Only when I befriended a gay man did I learn that there is little difference between us. I understand the rage and hurt that accompany the exclusion from legal rights, but I also think that eloquent gay spokesmen like some of those on this site will try to get past the rage and make an effort to educate more of us.
Smart man...very smart man.
 

WestSiderNYC

Sexy Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2005
Posts
50
Media
3
Likes
42
Points
488
Location
Manhattan
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
FYI If anyone wants to learn about some of organized means by which the LGBT community in the state of New York is going to approach the legislature with this issue, go to www.prideagenda.org. I just went to a fundraiser event for this group yesterday in the Hamptons to show my support! And my state elected officials are very supportive of gay marriage... if only the people upstate cared what I thought on the issue! :)
 

B_Stronzo

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2005
Posts
4,588
Media
0
Likes
130
Points
183
Location
Plimoth Plantation
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
BronxBombshell said:
I have a migraine, and I'm off to bed. But I knew I'd forget to post this if I didn't do it right away.

Stronzo, I hope you'll forgive a slight breach of our agreement. I'm sure you will as I come here actually on the same side of the argument, for once.

Here's what I want to say. The most important thing here is to not lose sight of the main objective. Stronzo, you seem to be almost in despair in your early posts in this thread, and that's not like you. Clearly, the next step is to do just what the court suggests and approach the legislators. If I'm not mistaken, (and I could be) most of them are up for re-election. Now is the time to apply the pressure, now before September primaries. Get those petitions and letters out. Organize disruptive, performance art-like demonstrations. Put on your marching shoes. The court says the state constitution has to be changed. Do not despair. Get it changed.

I'm going to go back to ignoring you now. :wink:

Breach away. It's fine. You've nailed my mood precisely. But please believe me our respective causes are light years apart in evolution so I find less support generally in mine than you do in yours as easily seen in our respective threads. Perhaps a generation from my own it'll be different. I hope so. But now gay rights are still in their infancy in any practical way.

I have a migraine too. And your critique of me is correct. I'm rarely in a defeat mode but this thing's pretty big. You see where I live I don't witness, at least firsthand and by overt action, the sort of feelings "COLJohn" speaks of in his good post about preconceptions in the mid West. I was raised in a household that valued the individual immensely over the group. Trouble is I still, naively, think everyone if given the opportunity, will take the high road. Even in my own pretty enlightened family group I was never subjected to stereotypes about limp wrists and lisps. So I come at this from a place of astonishment on a pretty primal level.

Indeed knowing I was gay as early as I can recall, I found it pretty easy to make the pronouncement to all my family members once I had my footing and was confindent of my place in the sexual continuum. So when I see this business like what happened in Albany I still see it as entirely unbelievable of a real gut level.

I've never been one to stoop to the "common mentality" so with the abuses of our Constitution being quasi-permanent by court mandate I become increasingly sobered to a distortion of reality. It simply defies decency to me this business. So I'm left thinking that the human race is, of necessity, a rather superflous and not-terribly-bright lot.

That's really the source of any despondency you read here.

I rally. I always do.

But this thing's taken a monstrous toll on my fellows (term used inclusively) in my beloved Massachusetts and especially in the gay neighborhoods of Boston and at the tip of Cape Cod (Provincetown) where my boyfriend and I have so many good gay friends. The mood's markedly changed and before we all rally to the "call" I suspect there will be a sobering time of this reality setting in (where you find me now) in which we regroup over the next few months.

I've just finished watching the local news here on the Boston channel and the New York decision has made the Massachusetts one come to the forefront again. The pro amendment bunch (read anti-gay marriage) has been bolstered and the present status of gay marriage will come up for public vote in November of 2008. It's pretty obvious to me that this vote will overturn the State Supreme Court's decision to allow us to marry.

Indeed putting gay marriage up to popular vote is synonymous with giving the denizens of Selma, Alabama the right to popular vote on Civil Rights issues in the mid-1960s. There are some things in this democracy that have to be instituted it appears. My friend "dong20" has written me privately and this is what he had to say about our Constitution and this issue. It bears posting and I suspect he'll not consider it a betrayal of our private discourse if I do so:

dong20inprivatepmtoStronzo said:
The problem with the Constitution is that while it was a masterpiece of it's age, that age is not our age. One can see that as there is no explicit right to same sex marriage written into the Constitution and the remit of the judiciary is to uphold the constitution the judgment may be legal in that narrow context. But the fact that there is such variance of opinion means it is coming down the courts making ruling based on personal morality judgments, and that is a very steep and slippery slope.

However it would be fool to believe that the intended effect of the 14th and 15th amendements was not to deny those rights but simply to elucidate those deemed most vital or obvious at that time, and, as times change so must your Constitution.

And so it must.

Thanks for weighing in BronxBombshell. I was glad to see your support here.

Stronzo.
 

rhino_horn

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Posts
342
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
163
Location
east coast-usa
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
is there a gay lobby in existance? i think that might help...rights arent free.

*unless you have some sort of million gay march or something, you could rent jesse jackson for a couple of days, you might be taken seriously.:smile: