UPDATED: NY Senate Votes NO on Gay Marriage This Afternoon
UPDATE 3 PM ET — Gothamist:
…the New York State Senate voted 38-24 against a bill to legalize same-sex marriage. The bill was finally brought to the floor for an up or down vote today after overcoming legislative roadblocks from opponents. During the emotional debate, one of the bill’s sponsors, State Senator Thomas K. Duane of Manhattan, who is gay, said, “This legislation would merely provide me and tens of thousands of other New Yorkers with equal rights in New York State. It would make me equal in every way to everyone else in this chamber.”
UPDATE @ 2:44 PM: The Senate is voting right now.
Debate is going on now. Watch it live. The NYTimes:
The State Senate scheduled a vote for Wednesday about whether to legalize same-sex marriage, but the outcome remained uncertain with people on both sides of the debate conceding they did not know how the vote would play out.
By clearing the path for a vote, Senate Democrats have removed the last remaining obstacle for a debate on the same-sex marriage bill, which has never been put to a vote in the Senate despite repeated efforts by gay rights advocates.
But Democrats, who have a bare, one-seat majority, do not have enough votes to pass the bill without some Republican support.
Senate Republicans said Wednesday morning that they believed their members could provide a few votes for the bill, but it was not certain whether those votes would be enough to offset the handful of Democratic no votes that are anticipated.
107 Responses to “UPDATED: NY Senate Votes NO on Gay Marriage This Afternoon”
“Surprising to find out that they run New York. I had no idea.”
That's because they run it from remote control in Cambridge, MA, which is a secret hideout. Shhh.
Hi Kathy, Guess you don't have your “Enabled. Send me notifications” turned on.
Almoderate — I agree totally. I don't know if you've ever read any of my comments before (fine by me, just giving you context), but I actually don't oppose gay marriage for any reason — on the contrary, I am an activist FOR gay marriage — and I'm also an athiest, for all argumentative purposes, at least. it's just that if someone believes everything they're told by their pastor, “gays shouldn't marry” makes some sense. “It's chosen” makes no sense at all.
Well, I must have had it turned on, because when I clicked your link, the radio box next to that choice was selected.
Dr. J, I understand what you're saying and I appreciate your original comment (and the follow-up). But my point is more directed to this statement of yours, “The practical question is what to do with these millions of gays mincing around, since they don't seem to know how to go away. Are we better off (a) leaving them…”
It's not are WE better off leaving THEM…. We're all citizens of the US and we should all have the same rights. STRAIGHTS don't get to decide how gays should lead their lives (except of course straights DO decide everyday how gays get to lead their lives). The issue should not be about “us and them” but about letting everyone in this country have equal rights. And many gays are doing just fine despite the obstacles put up by many heteros.
Yes, I understand San Francisco may be more enlightened when it comes to rights of its citizens than other places, but there are many gay people (and couples) all over this country, including those in rural areas, who are doing just fine too. Not easy and many trials and tribulations, but the gays and lesbians in these areas are much better off now than they were 15 years ago.
Mainstream culture does have something to offer…. but it's the IDEAL mainstream culture that has something to offer, not the mainstream culture that actually exists in a world of double-standards.
What many heteros fail to understand is that gays and lesbians would love to live the lives they were raised to live, in loving and stable (and mainstream type) relationships. Gays and lesbians are not different than anyone else. The “monsters” and “deviants” labels that people like Silhouette apply to gays and lesbians out to be is just plain wrong. We were raised and share the same values like everyone else in this society. But we can't live like everyone else because “mainstream” heteros refuse to treat us as equals and even take away rights we once had.
The deviants are largely created by people like Silhouette and Father_Time who won't allow gays and lesbians to lead “normal” lives, and who do not even believe in treating gays and lesbians with equal respect.
What I don't understand is that straights can have as much sex with whoever they want (in and outside of marriage) and maybe a few people raise their eyebrows, but for the most part it is ignored, unless it's a woman who is really slutty or a prostitute. But for the most part straight people don't care what other straight people do in bed. However if two guys want to commit to each other then suddenly everyone seems to know EXACTLY what they are doing in bed and consider themselves sinners and they may even be beat-up because they are sinners. Which group of people are really doing the most harm here? The two men who just want to go about their business and love each other? Or the adulterers and fornicators who beat them up, take away the men's rights (to marry as an example), maybe fire them from their jobs and overall just want to deny those men their happiness? And of course these people are violating the Golden Rule, which is a basic human principle and ethical code which we should all strive to live by. So really… which group of people is doing the more harm?
By the way, just to be clear, I don't think you're homophobic and as I said I appreciate your comments. Take my comments more as adding more color to the subject than trying to “win” an argument with you. (I don't need to “win” anything with you.) Other than one point I made I don't see any disagreement with you. Thanks as always.
Kathy, with regards to your reply to ProfElwood about not being able to find JD's post… I think your comment to JD, “Excuse me? You can't choose whom you marry? Since when?”
Was directed at this comment JD made: “How you chose to spend your sexual energy or whom you sleep with can be chosen.”
I'm only saying that because JD did not specifically say marriage, but one can reasonably assume that in America one chooses their marriage partner and will marry they will have sex. At any rate, that's the way I read your comment.
If I missed something between you and ProfElwood and am quoting the wrong comments, I apologize… I'm just trying to be helpful.
Ahhhh, thank you, StockBoy. That sounds right.
Helpfulness is always welcome.
” I would want to look to as an example would be straights. It's not a great track record given the promiscuity among teens and high divorce rates, much less all those “marriage” shows on TV and the way many men treat their wives.”
You are exactly right, Stockboy. That was my original point if you care to go back and read it.
Promiscuity is they key, no matter who you are – straight or gay. People who sleep around have a harder time keeping a relationship together. I believe ProfElwood stated that earlier.
Those straights that approach marriage in a sexual light (only) are doomed to failure. Same goes for homosexuals.
Matthew?
“For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
Or was it this one:
“What comes out of you is what defiles you. For from within, out of your hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and defile you.”
Yeah… That's pretty condemning. A don't see a choice offered here. A man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his WIFE and they shall become one flesh. In the second example, ALL sexual immorality is condemned.
“So what I'm telling you is that the immutability of skin color was not the issue with regard to miscegenation. “
Ok Kathy…. Thank you for the history lesson. They were told, WRONGLY, that they should not date or marry. Why was it wrong? Because the racists misinterpreted the Bible to say that it was wrong. They WRONGLY thought that blacks were not really “human”, or at least lower than whites. This is the same thing that Jews were told by Nazis. In the American version, slavery had not ended with the Emancipation Proclamation. It continued well into the 20th century with those wrong views of blacks being passed from generation to generation and accepted as fact. Civil Rights legislation helped to curb that, but the fight goes on today in some areas.
This is not the case with homosexuality. Yes, people WRONGLY think they are any number of bad things. Some people are truly homophobic. You and I know that homosexuals can be upstanding members of society – intelligent and loving people. This is not my argument. My argument has to do with the sexual act. It is the only thing that makes people homosexual. A man who loves and cherishes another man is not necessarily homosexual. A woman who loves and cherishes a man is not necessarily heterosexual. What makes them _______sexual is with whom they chose to have sex. This in itself sets the group apart from say sexism, racism, or the like.
Racial civil rights and homosexual rights are no the same.
“Heterosexual married couples can have sex all those same ways, too! JD? JD? Are you there? Are you all right? Oh jeez! Someone get a bucket of cold water!”
I've been in the military for 22 years, Kathy. I do not possess “virgin ears” and very little shocks me.
But your presentation of it made me chuckle. Thanks. We don't get to chuckle enough around here when we are on this subject.
And with the left-handed people analogy…… Being left handed, to the best of my knowledge, doesn't involve sexual activity or marriage (unless we're talking about masturbation). LOL.
JD, “”Insufficient evidence that sexual orientation change efforts work, says APA”
Ok. Let's get one thing out there. Sexual orientation change efforts have a very small success rate (approximately 20%). Ok, that's fine. But the fact that ANY of these people were able to leave the lifestyle goes against the “gays can't help it, their born that way” argument.”
This line of thinking is the most hysterical I've read in a long time. Nope… I take that back. I just read how Cheney claimed Obama was aiding and abetting terrorists by sending in more troops to hunt terrorists down…. But this ranks right up there.
Every gay and lesbian person I know “started off” with the expectation that they were straight…. I mean we were all taught that we were going to marry the opposite sex and have kids. Yet at some point we realized that what we were taught went against our natural feelings and attractions to the same sex…. And this realization that we are gay or lesbian was done without anyone trying to make us gay or lesbian.
So exactly which way does that “sexual orientation change effort” work?
That “sexual orientation change effort” line of thinking is a dead horse that was dug up out of some grave and dragged to the starting gate for a race. If anyone is going to start down that line they'd better explain just how every gay and lesbian was raised with the expectation that they were straight and how they “changed” to being gay or lesbian in the first place.
Kathy,
SteveK has taken to playing ostrich with me. He hopes that if he ignores me long enough, then the truth will change. Every time I “slam” some of his rants, he blows it off.
You are a tougher cookie, however. (glad of that). But you may take delight in one thing, Kat.
Although no one will ever convince me that homosexuality is “normal/natural” behavior or that it is not condemned in the Bible……. Many here on TMV have made headway with me as to the libertarian approach to this volitile issue. It's not my business who people have sex with, live with, or share legal status with. With that said, the only issue that still separates us is “marriage”. I still contend that gays can go to an attorney (where I go to a preacher) and make things legal between them. The law can recognize legal rights of survivorship, insurance, and everything else in that respect.
Let's take one at a time, Stockboy. (and make sure you read the last paragraph…..a lot of sincerity there)
First of all, I have met a total of eight people that have joined the Church who have left homosexual lifestyles. I have talked with them at lenght about it. They had similar views to their “natural feelings” and stated that many psychological and emotional factors lead them to that conclusion. Four were molested as children. Two were sexually promiscuous with both genders. And two pursued homosexuality after several bouts with heartbreak or abuse with the opposite sex. I cannot explain why or how they could just “drop” the homosexual lifestyle. But they did. I also cannot say that all gays can do it.
“What I don't understand is that straights can have as much sex with whoever they want (in and outside of marriage) and maybe a few people raise their eyebrows”
You should already know that I look at this in a cultural light. Once upon a time in American culture, promiscuity was not tolerated and those who fell to the temptation were ostricized. Back then, you could count the number of divorced couples in town on one hand. So now, it has become so commonplace that (as you said) few people raise their eyebrows. We moved toward social acceptance of promisuity among heterosexuals. Now we tend to be moving toward social acceptance of homosexuallity. I just don't see that having a positive impact on our culture in America.
As a homosexual man, I realize that you see me attacking you. I truly am not attempting to do that. I speak with not an ounce of hostility or malace toward you. You are my American brother, and I love you – I truly do. I will stand up and support any law that severely punishes anyone that causes you physical or verbal harm. I would take a “butt whoopin” trying to keep anyone from attacking you simply because you are gay. But you have to understand that I do not support any legislation that singles out your (or anyone's) lifestyle.
JD, “Find me ONE article that says that anal sex is healthy. Just one.”
How about this one? It's written for heteros. In fact it is NBC's women's health website.
http://yourtotalhealth.ivillage.com/second-opin…
JD, “That was my original point if you care to go back and read it.”
I had replied to Dr. J (in a reply he had to you) and went back just now to see if I could find your comment that he replied to. I didn't see this point in your original comment, (as I looked through the comments) but you have good morals and are struggling to understand how these sorts of issues fit with gays and lesbians. This sounds exactly like something you would say (that promiscuity is unhealthy no matter who you are). I agree with you and my apologies if I missed this in the string of replies somewhere. Thanks for pointing it out!
I just want to take a step back because many of the comments on here are Christian in nature. Nothing wrong with that, but we need to remember that our country was founded by people (generally Protestants) who were persecuted on religious grounds and fought for this country so everyone could practice whatever religion they wanted to. While we remain a “Christian” country, we are a land of many faiths. All this talk about Christian beliefs and ideals is fine and dandy, but if you make your argument on those beliefs you have to remember that those beliefs are YOUR beliefs and no one else's. In other words I don't think you'd appreciate a Muslim, or Buddhist or Hindu or anyone else trying to tell you that your argument was flawed because it wasn't in the Muslim, or Buddhist or Hindu theological teachings.
JD, “I still contend that gays can go to an attorney (where I go to a preacher) and make things legal between them.”
That is my belief (fundamentally) too. I think each church should have the right to marry whomever they want within their religion and any legal or civil benefits would be granted by a separate civil procedure, just like heteros get marriage licenses from their City Halls today.
In other words a religious ceremony in a church for those who want it (and if a particular church doesn't want to do “gay” marriage they should not be legally obligated to do so) and then the “civil” piece of paper conferring legal benefits, just like today, however the “civil” piece would be for gays and heteros.
“As a homosexual man, I realize that you see me attacking you.”
I actually do not at all see you attacking me. I think you're struggling with conflicting beliefs and while I don't agree with them, I see your attempt to be moral and fair to all within your world view. I appreciate the effort and lots of energy you are obviously putting into this issue.
People (obviously not you) who “attack” gays and lesbians are those who have one view and refuse to change it. This is fine, except when that view does not treat that person with respect or allow for the possibility of a difference of opinion or even acknowledge that there is a different set of life's experiences, each life experience is equal in value.
Now having said that…. I can't help but wonder why you lumped the “[t]wo were sexually promiscuous with both genders” (but dropped it) into the homosexual column and they changed from their homosexual lifestyle to a “straight” lifestyle.
As far as this, “But you have to understand that I do not support any legislation that singles out your (or anyone's) lifestyle.”
Then I assume that you would support legislation that corrects past mistakes. Meaning if there was a law that said only straight could marry then you would support legislation to correct that so that no one (in this case straights) is given more rights than another group. No one in the gay community is asking for “special rights” just equal rights.
That article did not say it was HEALTHY.
It said it can be pleasurable. It said it was exciting. It also reinforced my statement that anal bacteria can cause infection in the urethra when protection is not used.
NEXT!
Oddly enough Stockboy…..
You and I are closer to seeing eye to eye on this.
Tidbits touched on the “leave it to Churches” angle. That's fine. It will be worth debating in the future.
And you have to know I am not trying to force my beliefs on others. To me, it seems to be the other way around. Homosexuals appear to be forcing their beliefs upon the heterosexual institution of marriage – an institution most Americans still believe to be a God-ordained union. I guess that's a matter of perspective, huh?
Yes it has, Satan came up last night complaining about how cold it was down there…
The issue should not be about “us and them” but about letting everyone in this country have equal rights.
There are a few rights issues, but I think it's ultimately about acceptance, for which rights are a poor proxy. Your right to be left alone in your bedroom is a slam dunk, but when it comes to marriage we're trying to decide whether that's a right or not. Surely the state can't grant you the right to bring your boyfriend home to your family for Christmas, even though that's a situation where the lack of equality can really sting.
My argument has to do with the sexual act. It is the only thing that makes people homosexual.
This is absolutely, unequivocally, 100 percent wrong. This is an incorrect statement. It is false. Homosexuals are people who are attracted to and who fall in love with others of their same gender. It does NOT have to do solely with the sexual act. And you can tell me from now until the end of time that homosexuality is defined by the sex act and you will still be wrong. Flat-out wrong, JD. I know this without any doubt because I have seen loving gay and lesbian marital relationships with my own eyes and ears and every other sense that comes into play when you can see two people are in love.
A man who loves and cherishes another man is not necessarily homosexual. A woman who loves and cherishes a man is not necessarily heterosexual.
Obviously, this is true. A father and his son are two men. Brothers are both men. Old friends can be both men or both women. That does not mean that homosexuals are defined only by the sexual act. Two men can love and cherish each other without having sex. Also, two men (or two women) can have sex without being in love with each other. AND two men or two women can and do fall in love with each other, and being in love with someone implies a physical component. This is just as true for homosexuals as for heterosexuals.
They were told, WRONGLY, that they should not date or marry. Why was it wrong? Because the racists misinterpreted the Bible to say that it was wrong. They WRONGLY thought that blacks were not really “human”, or at least lower than whites
Um, yes. And homosexuals are told, WRONGLY, by people like you, that they should not (or that they cannot) fall in love or have sex. Homosexuals are told, WRONGLY, by people like you, that same-sex physical and romantic love is “unnatural” and “sinful.” That is just as WRONG as you now take it for granted that whites who opposed interracial marriages were WRONG.
But your presentation of it made me chuckle. Thanks. We don't get to chuckle enough around here when we are on this subject.
Thanks. It was intended to give you a chuckle, so I'm glad it succeeded.
Being left handed, to the best of my knowledge, doesn't involve sexual activity or marriage.
So? Mistaken notions about right and wrong are not always connected to sexual activity or marriage. Southern whites used to think it was wrong for blacks and whites to go to school together or to drink from the same water fountain, too. That had nothing to do with sexual activity or marriage. Left-handed people used to be forced to use their right hands, partly because it was thought that the left hand was associated with Satan, or evil. That was wrong because it was wrong. It wasn't wrong because it had or had not a connection with sexual activity or marriage.
I still contend that gays can go to an attorney (where I go to a preacher) and make things legal between them. The law can recognize legal rights of survivorship, insurance, and everything else in that respect.
Roro80 has specifically addressed this point with you before. It costs thousands of dollars more to get those rights through a lawyer than to get them through marriage. That is unequal protection of the law.
I find that 90+% of what the man says is absolutely, unequivocally wrong and chose to stop wasting keystrokes on him. I don't know whether to admire or call into question your ability to suffer fools.
Dr J, That's twice tonight that I've agreed with you 100%.
Great of you to join me here in the center, Steve. :^) Truth is, I find most of Jefferson's arguments on this page to ring of self-deception and invented-for-the-occasion principles. But I also see kernels of substance in a couple spots, which probably disqualifies me from the liberal merit badge.
TMV really needs more true conservative writers here, then we could get together like this more often. And who knows, you might even start reading me as less of a satanist on economics and other subjects.
OK guys and gals, for one thing I said and have always said that out of the findings of the AI industry…pay careful attention here now; SEXUAL ORIENTATION CAN BE TAUGHT [AND LEARNED] VIA ASSOCIATIVE CONDITIONING AT AN IMPRINTABLE AGE, USUALLY AT OR AROUND THE ONSET OF PUBERTY. ONCE CONDITIONED IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO CHANGE AND IS NO LONGER A 'CHOICE' PER SE.
OK, got that? I'm not just citing one species the AI industry uses. AI is trained into stud animals across many species, MANY SPECIEIS. Using that as a model we can infer then since humans are also a species, the evidence weighs quite heavily that this is true with us also. The only argument you could make that this is false is that the entire field of comparative psychology is a sham. Lots of people with PhDs will then be in the unemployment lines…lol
Suffice it to say that we need to look honestly at what an etire industry has found across species. So far the deviant-lobby refuses to acknowledge comparative psychology. They know the AI industry exists. They know about how stud animals are fixated year after year in thousands if not millions of cases, proven emperically over and over and over, across many species much less malleable than homo sapiens to learn to shunt their sexual drives onto other objects [including same-sexed "dummy mounts"] and then fixate in this behavior via classical conditioning. Yet we're supposed to, via “political correctness” somehow throw this Mt. Everest of data aside and assume that somehow, some way the most malleable species on the planet [study child develepment folks...or is that a defunct science as well?] is the exception to the rule.
Utterly ridiculous. Until we know whether or not sexuality is trained, or trainable and how it affects social structures, we'd damn well better err on the side of caution. Sorry.
“Many have made good arguments for the libertarian approach (tidbits, etc). You have not.”
I'm not a libertarian and never claimed to be one. I've discussed my views on why I don't like this approach with folks like tidbits on many occasions, and we respectfully disagree. I don't think those who believe in God should own the word “marriage”.
“My gut tells me that to further denegrate our social standards will lead to even worse cultural decay. “
I've always held the position that what is or is not in someone's gut shouldn't be dictated by law. In other words: your gut feeling is super, JD, but somehow I don't think that's how policy should be made.
“I don't think those who believe in God should own the word “marriage”. ~roro
********
Agreed. This has nothing whatsoever to do with “God”. If that was the case, polygamists' should already have the right to marry since the Bible has much more support for one man with many wives than it does for monogamy.
What this is, is as it should be: a debate using the studies of comparative psychology, anthropology, child development, sociology and other learned schools of method. We need to understand thoroughly, not just cursorily, the phenomenon of deviant sexuality.
The pairing of male and female has the potential to result in offspring. This is the normal state, like it or not. We need to thoroughly understand how homosexuals being married has the potential to affect the psyches of developing children who look to norms to model themselves after. Only an idiot who has any familiarity with the study of child development could conclude that children seeing homosexuals as married would somehow be able to “follow their instincts” toward normal sexuality as biology dictates it for the sake of creating offspring. People who retool logic in this way are worse than liars, they are recruiters. They know, many of them, damn well about how children model themselves after adults using norms. The pressure amongst children to be “normal” is the strongest there is. If is is normal for homosexuals to be married, then you can bet the pink slip, the house and grandma's heirlooms that you will see a predictable rise in the numbers of homosexuals within our population.
So just accept that as the facts that support it urge. The only question then that remains open for debate is: Do you want there to be an overall rise in the homosexual/other deviant populations or not?
And you know, DLS does have some points on this issue that keep getting [I notice] skirted around. The polygamy and “other than one man and one woman” argument. There is such a thing as legal precident in this country. For those who aren't familiar with it, or who are pretending to not be familiar with it, it is the process by which the barn door gets kicked open for other people to follow. Once we legally define marraige as something other than between one man and one woman, all future arguments designed to keep it within the “new” paramaters of “between one man and one woman, or one man and one man, or one woman and one woman” will be a joke, the laughingstock of legal argument. After this is established it will be a cake walk for any half-baked attorney to argue on behalf, say, of his polygamist clients or on the behalf of brother and sister who want to marry. After all, if one of them chooses to sterilize themselves to skirt around the counter-argument of “to keep inbreeding from happening”, who are we to deny that brother and sister lie in a bed together?
You think this is ridiculous? It is no more “kinky” than two men or women having sex.
We need norms. We need to keep them. We need to realize that there will always be exceptions too. We need to understand how those exceptions come about. We need to have compassion for those that are different but we must never see them as anything but different though..
I don't know if anyone is still following this thread, but I think we all could use an on-subject laugh.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/12/the_…
Sil — I'm sorry, but these are such old, simplistic, wrong-headed arguments, and so far from resembling anything you stated you wanted to do (“understand thoroughly”) that it would just be a waste of time to try to form any sort of rebuttal.
Thanks for the link roro. I think however that only one side of this debate will be able to laugh at the chart… the other side will feel rather foolish (if that's even possible) about their position.
JD: “That article did not say it was HEALTHY.
It said it can be pleasurable. It said it was exciting. It also reinforced my statement that anal bacteria can cause infection in the urethra when protection is not used.”
LOL! And sneezing can spread the flu virus and kill people. And if you want to be nit-picky about unhealthy stuff… eating processed foods are not good for the body, and what about all the pesticides sprayed on vegetables? That's not healthy either. And of course any sexual contact (including penile vaginal) can cause infection in the urethra. Even lube (without any penetration) can cause cause the urethra to be irritated leading to a discharge which can be treated with antibiotics.
So what IS healthy? Breathing sure ain't if you apply your standards.
“And you have to know I am not trying to force my beliefs on others. To me, it seems to be the other way around. Homosexuals appear to be forcing their beliefs upon the heterosexual institution of marriage – an institution most Americans still believe to be a God-ordained union. I guess that's a matter of perspective, huh?”
So what about a church which is willing to marry a gay couple yet can not because the straight religious folks don't want to see gays marry? Exactly who is forcing whose beliefs on others?
“… but when it comes to marriage we're trying to decide whether that's a right or not.”
Huh? Of course marriage is a right. And why do many straights feel that gays should not marry and even take away their right to do so?
“They know about how stud animals are fixated year after year in thousands if not millions of cases, proven emperically over and over and over, across many species much less malleable than homo sapiens to learn to shunt their sexual drives onto other objects [including same-sexed "dummy mounts"] and then fixate in this behavior via classical conditioning.”
Sure and maybe being attracted to the same sex is the natural inclination for humans. All children are raised to be straight…. perhaps gays are gay because they are not inclined to be brainwashed.
And as far as conditioning… no one is arguing that conditioning doesn't exist and if you believe it is effective then you also have to admit that straights can be conditioned to perform homosexual acts.
Hey StockBoy, I think Silhouette is calling you a stud!
roro, thanks for the chart! That's a blast!
Pro-gay biggots bore me.
yes but father time, it is this kind of snide, mocking dismissiveness of factual rebuttal that is losing them numbers in the polls and at the polls.
Carry on roro, carry on. Every rude ad hominem you spew out is a nail in the coffin of your “cause”.
How's this for snide and mocking dismissiveness:
I just checked, and every single one of your arguments against gay marriage is in a little pink hexagonal space on the link I provided. In the interest of not reproducing the wheel, why don't you just go to the link, and find your little pink arguments, and move to the adjoining blue rebuttal. See how easy that is?
Oh, but you're right — calling these “old, simplistic” arguments was somehow ad hominem instead of a simple statement of fact. /snark
“Carry on roro, carry on.”
Ahhh…you don't know how much your encouragement means to me.
Like in prisons?
That may be so, but it's difficult to see how allowing two people to form a stable, lasting relationship (i.e., social stability) “denegrates” (sic) social standards.
Silhouette actually has the ability (and the wisdom which I lack on the subject) to put into words much of what I've been trying to say. Science totally backs up his statements. Mind you….I didn't just take his statements as is, I went and looked at comparative psychology and found that she's right.
So to just belittle her argument as simplistic or wrong-headed WITHOUT rebuttal is much like SteveK's approach to stick his head in the sand. Many of you use TMV as a sounding board to regurgitate liberal (and even conservative) slogans and talking points in an effort to further your cause. If I thought that's what this site would end up being, I wouldn't have blogged here the first time.
Rebuttal is what it's all about, or should be. As I've told you and Kathy several times, I don't care who people sleep with, live with, or share insurance policies with. It's their business. My biggest concern has been and will be the effect it will have on our social culture (or lack of one) and our nation. Silhouette was able to back that concern up eloquently.
“eating processed foods are not good for the body, and what about all the pesticides sprayed on vegetables? That's not healthy either.”
Oddly enough, I agree. People shouldn't eat processed foods (or those with pesticides). I'm convinced it has lead to the increases in cancer. Should it be illegal? No.
As far as the penal-vaginal thing…..Yes, that too can cause infection. But not in a normal state. If men or women do not practice standard hygeine, it can happen frequently. But a normally clean couple practicing standard intercourse will not contract infection. The same could be said for homosexual couples, but not in the “normal” hygenic state. To ensure infection does not occur, a condom, enema, or another technique must be used – that was from the site you gave.
“So what about a church which is willing to marry a gay couple yet can not because the straight religious folks don't want to see gays marry?”
That's one I still don't have an answer for. I just don't know.
I actually checked out your site, Roro (although you'd probably chop off your fingers before you'd visit one I posted).
You said that it addressed Silhouette's arguments.
I does not.
Where the polygamy and incest hexagons are – there's no answer. Just a s dead end.
There were a couple of hexagons that just blow off the arguments as well (Non Sequitur argument —–> “what's nonsequitur mean, do I need a fag to English dictionary?”
Many of the arguments are valid. But the ones brought up here are not addressed.
Oh for goodness' sake JD. The reason I dismissed her out-of-hand is *again* because the arguments are so old, so thoroughly debunked, she has been called on the absolutely inappropriate use of “science” so so many times before, and quite frankly, if someone thinks that anthropomorphization of friggin' livestock has anything to do with gay people getting married, I just don't know what kind logic is going to get through to her. Humans are actually different animals than cattle. (I know, a crazy thought, but hey, let's think outside the box on this one.)
And damn it — this is so dumb. I'm angry you're wasting my time with this crap, JD, but you are someone I'd actually care to interact with again here, so here you go:
You want to know why the brothers/sisters marrying argument is stupid? *Because nobody wants to have sex with their siblings.* This actually IS something that is evolutionarily true. And you know what? If both siblings are consenting adults, and they want to get “married” for tax purposes or whatever? Fine. Go for it. None of my business.
You want to know why the polygamy argument is stupid? The vanishingly small number of triads/quads who actually stay together long enough to think about formalizing their relationship. But you know what? If we can get past all the logistics — inheritance, next-of-kin, power of attorney, divorce law, spousal benefits — then I say let the .001% of the population who would like to marry two people at the same time do so. Again: none of my business. The reason polygamy is so dispised in this country, while threesome sex-capades are not, is because powerful religious nuts decided they wanted to collect 12-year-old girls and keep them as baby makers and sex slaves. When you take out these sick jerks and stick to (again, this is important) *consenting adults*, then the number of people who actually want to marry more than one person vanishes to basically zero.