New York governor basically legalizes gay marriage statewide
posted at 9:15 pm on May 29, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Why “basically”? Because only the legislature can formally legalize it and all attempts to push a bill through have stalled so far. Which means gays can’t get married in New York … but they can, of course, now get married in California or Massachusetts and then come back to New York, where, per Paterson’s new executive order, their marriages will be recognized with full faith and credit (the same principle that lets straights run off to Vegas and then have their Nevada license recognized back home). Not the cleverest gay marriage gambit ever to be tried in NYS but still darned clever in how it (a) lets him argue semi-persuasively that he’s just following the law as it already is, (b) holds the virtue for most conservatives of at least being imposed by an elected official and not a court, and (c) nudges the legislature to make a move on passing a full-fledged gay marriage law of its own, especially since enforcement in the interim is apt to be messy:
It is less clear what the directive means for state policies that are not enforced by state agencies but by the courts, like those that govern child custody or protect a husband and wife from having to testify against one another about statements they made to each other while married.
I’m curious what the HA faithful think. Most of you are avowed federalists; here’s an example of the principle that might not cut your way. Opposition to the move is already stirring, meanwhile, which makes me wonder if the legislature won’t just duck the issue and let Paterson sink or swim on his own. Remember, too, that the Defense of Marriage Act (signed by Bill Clinton, don’t forget) says states aren’t required to recognize gay marriages in other states. I wonder if some opponent won’t try to argue that because no New York state law has been passed formally granting full faith and credit to gay marriages, Paterson’s guilty of improperly/unilaterally “requiring” the state to recognize them and therefore in violation of DOMA. Seems like a stretch since DOMA’s really aimed at courts interpreting the federal constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause, but any weapon to hand, I guess.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next »
right4life on May 30, 2008 at 3:28 PM
So, if I was born and at 5 months of age, my father died. So my grandmother and my mother raise me, or just my mother does by herself…
I won’t make it? I will be a lesser being for it?
That sounds absurd to me.
bridgetown on May 30, 2008 at 3:31 PM
its called projection. the gays want to impose their agenda upon everyone else. and thats ‘tolerant’ and ‘just’
but when a christian wants to do the same, its ‘hateful’ ‘vile’ and ‘intolerant’
and the gays want to silence all dissent, something no christian wants to do…laughable.
some pigs are more equal than others….
right4life on May 30, 2008 at 3:32 PM
It is no more harmful for a child to be brought up in a male/female household. If there is abuse in the home, there is abuse in the home. If there is love and respect in the home, then there is love and respect in a home, regardless of the parent’s sexual practices or lack thereof.
bridgetown on May 30, 2008 at 3:09 PM
And here is the real debate. Of course parents can be abusive. But the vast majority of natural parents are not. Adoptive parents take on children for a variety of reasons. When the state puts children into a home, NOW the practices become a matter of potential concern for the state because the state (not the natural parents) are ultimately responsible for the children. Promiscuity, stabiliy, abuse and more must be examined for all situations. This is where greater scrutiny (for all adopted parents/children) comes into play. A lifestyle that puts its sexuality on display in parades and in public should have second thoughts when granting adoption (heterosexual or gay).
jerseyman on May 30, 2008 at 3:33 PM
you may make it, but you have a much greater chance of ending up in jail, on welfare, etc.
the facts are there. you need to educate yourself.
right4life on May 30, 2008 at 3:33 PM
right4life on May 30, 2008 at 3:32 PM
Gay people want to be TREATED Equally, Just like WOMEN or BLACK People, etc. have also had to fight for.
If they are free to Marry, what will that IMPOSE on YOUR hetero lifestyle? NOTHING.
bridgetown on May 30, 2008 at 3:34 PM
How is it different from the muslim ayatollahs?
The muslim ayatollah’s promote a satanistic false religion…I am telling you things straight out of the Bible.
And you’re also wrong about your joy about there being no state religion…there is a official state religion..unfortunately it is secular humanism!
Only a naive person would think that by abolishing Christianity and promoting the idea that there is no God is not a religion.
SaintOlaf on May 30, 2008 at 3:36 PM
I still keep wondering what gay agenda you are so scared of. Do you think they will impose a fashion police upon us that forces us to add a little color to our wardrobe? Perhaps they will insist that we visit an art museum once a year?
DCGamer on May 30, 2008 at 3:36 PM
you make an unsupported assumption that ‘gayness’ is a trait, and not a choice.
I already posted what it will impose, see my previous link from the national review.
and its not about ‘equal rights’ but about special rights for homosexuals. so anything they disagree with is a crime. ‘hate crime’ = thought crime.
right4life on May 30, 2008 at 3:37 PM
jerseyman on May 30, 2008 at 3:33 PM
Again. It is not about Gayness.
It is about Sexuality being a private thing.
Hetero OR Homo, so let the Gay people marry.
You won’t be ADDING parades there. You will be ELIMINATING GAY parades because they won’t NEED TO FREAKIN’ parade around begging for RIGHTS.
bridgetown on May 30, 2008 at 3:38 PM
you are showing your ignorance.
Christians have been arrested recently at “gay” festivals for nothing more than having a protest sign that is “wider than their torso,” but now police have gone even further, targeting Bible-carrying ministers for praying on public property and for standing on a public sidewalk near a “gay” festival.
One of the new cases comes from Elmira, N.Y., where police arrested seven Christians who went into a public park where a “gay” fest was beginning and started to pray, faces down, while holding their Bibles.
They were cited for “disturbing the peace,” and Assistant Police Chief Mike Robertson told WND that the seven are accused of a “combination” of allegations under that statute, which includes the “intent” to cause a public inconvenience, any “disturbance” of a meeting of persons, obstructing vehicular or pedestrian traffic, or taking part in “any act that serves no legitimate purpose.”
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=42442
get a clue.
right4life on May 30, 2008 at 3:38 PM
What sort of bigoted sterotyping is that? Do you know anything about gays beyond what you see on TV?
flenser on May 30, 2008 at 3:39 PM
Gay people want to be TREATED Equally
They are treated equally. Or, more often these days, better than equally.
flenser on May 30, 2008 at 3:40 PM
right4life on May 30, 2008 at 3:37 PM
You don’t know that it is not a choice. You don’t know that it Is a choice. Nobody knows and the scientific community will back me up on that.
It’s not a special right to marry who one loves except for Heterosexuals right now. Why are homosexuals denied the right?
Again, A homosexual married couple does NOTHING to harm your society, and if it does you have not demonstrated it, at all.
bridgetown on May 30, 2008 at 3:41 PM
flenser on May 30, 2008 at 3:40 PM
How are they treated ‘better than equally’????
oh, why do i bother.
bridgetown on May 30, 2008 at 3:42 PM
you don’t know that it is. actually I do know, having known several gay people rather well.
why are polygamists denied that right?? how intolerant of you!!
did you read the article? I have demonstrated, your inability to understand it is meaningless
right4life on May 30, 2008 at 3:43 PM
Olaf, you are most definitely not telling me things straight out of the Bible. What you are doing is telling me your interpretation of things in the Bible.
Proof. Islam did not exist when the Bible was written. Muslims will tell you that Mohammed finished what the Old and New Testaments started. (Their beliefs, not mine).
What I am trying to tell you is that you should keep your interpretations to yourself. I, as a Catholic, have a different interpretation than you do. If we were a majority in, say New Jersey, would you want me to pass a law saying that nobody could eat meat on Friday? Everyone must eat fish. After all, the majority will have spoken. What is wrong with the majority passing such a law?
DCGamer on May 30, 2008 at 3:45 PM
The issue is not really about equality – virtually no one disagrees on this point. It’s the imposition on society, the adoption issue, media, education in schools and text books, the idea that there is no difference between gay and heterosexual lifestyles. No one is saying that gays should be fired, arrested, or separated. Just do not impose on my children and society your agenda. The whole perspective has been turned around backwards.
Remember if everyone became gay, and I know this might be painful for some, we would all be extinct very soon.
jerseyman on May 30, 2008 at 3:46 PM
I’ve seen moronic comments on this board, but that wins the All Time Idiotic Award.
It is “different” is many ways. Most notably, it is “different” because it works through the legal and democratic process, something the mullahs have no time for.
The people most like the mullahs in todays America are the “gay rights” people. To a man and woman, they are stupid and intolerant bigots with no respect for the principles America was founded on. In fact, with outright hatred for them.
flenser on May 30, 2008 at 3:47 PM
but you have no trouble with a minority imposing its will upon the majority. too funny.
right4life on May 30, 2008 at 3:47 PM
Interesting. I think the little statistical evidence that’s in shows that few gays choose to marry in places they can, and have higher divorce rates. However, I suspect that gay marriage will crimp the style of many gays, because others might not be so tolerant of public displays any longer.
I guess they ought to be careful what they wish for.
JiangxiDad on May 30, 2008 at 3:48 PM
You are as much a Catholic as Andrew Sullivan.
You left-wingers don’t know how to say anything except “Shut up!”. I’m glad you keep saying how “tolerant” you are, because otherwise I’d start to think that you are what you claim to hate.
flenser on May 30, 2008 at 3:50 PM
absolutely true.
right4life on May 30, 2008 at 3:50 PM
I wasn’t supporting either side. A pox on both your houses.
JiangxiDad on May 30, 2008 at 3:51 PM
Nothing is wrong. Who says otherwise, apart from people like you?
flenser on May 30, 2008 at 3:51 PM
You’re being obtuse. It was a link provided to dispute your assertion that teh gheys use foster care to molest and recruit. That seems to be lost on you.
Obviously I’m not saying it’s ok in any circumstance, but you seem to think it’s much more prevalant and worse when homosexuals do it.
No, there’s only data, which is what the link provided.
No, it was a regular practice to condemn nearly all mentally retarded persons to horrific institutions. Again, you’re being obtuse and contrarian. But then, that’s the name of your game.
SouthernDem on May 30, 2008 at 3:54 PM
I don’t see how that’s a response to “its much better to leave them wandering homeless on the streets, without care”.
flenser on May 30, 2008 at 3:56 PM
Now I can’t follow you. Olaf doesn’t want the legal and democratic process. He wants the his literal interpretation of his bible.
Wouldn’t go so far, but certainly mostly singing the same songs from the same choir.
JiangxiDad on May 30, 2008 at 3:57 PM
guess you missed this:
Gay couple left free to abuse boys – because social workers feared being branded homophobic
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-480151/Gay-couple-left-free-abuse-boys–social-workers-feared-branded-homophobic.html
so its ‘homophobic’ to be against the abuse of boys by gays.
just being truthful, which you seem to dislike.
right4life on May 30, 2008 at 3:57 PM
I beg to differ. The people most like the mullahs are the ones discriminating against the gay lifestyle because, they say, their holy book tells them so.
America was founded on the principle that your religion not dictate others’ lifestyles.
bridgetown on May 30, 2008 at 3:57 PM
its not.
right4life on May 30, 2008 at 3:58 PM
yeah right. the founders were all for gay rights and abortion…laughable.
right4life on May 30, 2008 at 3:59 PM
gay rights has nothing to do with abortion.
Abortion is not mentioned by any of the founders.
The founders also held slaves and didn’t want women to vote.
laughable, my arse.
bridgetown on May 30, 2008 at 4:00 PM
Right.
But…, that is not an argument for the legalization of gay marriage, or the imposition of special rights, or for the designating of “gay” people as some special protected minority.
JiangxiDad on May 30, 2008 at 4:01 PM
This site seems to be crawling with libertarians. Libertarians all have this weird notion that the Founders were libertarians and that America was created to be a libertarian country. Nothing could be further from the truth, as even a casual knowledge of history shows.
The opposite of majoritarianism (rule by the many) is rule by the few, which is tyranny. The Founders were majoritarians.
flenser on May 30, 2008 at 4:01 PM
JiangxiDad on May 30, 2008 at 4:01 PM
I don’t think they should be designated a “special” protected minority, any more than any other minority, be it women, handicapped people, black people, asians….etc, wherever there is a need to protect against Hateful ignorance and harm.
Why does it have to be a special right to be able to get married. How about just the SAME rights that heterosexual people have.
bridgetown on May 30, 2008 at 4:02 PM
Balls. America was most certainly NOT founded on that principle. In America at the time of the Founding you’d have been tarred, feathered, and ridden out of town on a rail for your indulging in your “lifestyle”.
flenser on May 30, 2008 at 4:03 PM
No, they were for slavery, women as chattel, and other such 18th Century beliefs. Freeing the slaves took a bloody civil war and giving women the right to vote took many years of work in the suffrage movement. The history of this nation is one of ever-evolving freedom and liberty. The United States of today is very different from the United States of Washington’s day.
DCGamer on May 30, 2008 at 4:04 PM
I would bet everything I had on,
that if gay marriage were legalized across the nation. It would become a Non issue. Just as much as Hetero marriage is basically a Non issue.
bridgetown on May 30, 2008 at 4:04 PM
Maybe so, but patiently point out where/when an argument has veered towards libertarian. Also, doesn’t the whole life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness thing veers towards libertarianism? Was that strain addressed and disposed of back then, or not considered?
JiangxiDad on May 30, 2008 at 4:04 PM
that was in response to inane suggestion about the founders…obviously their religion dictated their morality, which dictated the laws they passed.
you really need some education.
so why are you using them to try to make points?
right4life on May 30, 2008 at 4:04 PM
You still have offered no good reason why we should go along with that, or any reasons at all really.
If you want to change the law from what it’s been for thousands of years, you’d better come up with something better than “I think it’s fair”.
flenser on May 30, 2008 at 4:05 PM
yeah we longed ago passed the stage of equality of all to some pigs are more equal than others…
you’re right Washington, Jefferson et al, wouldn’t recognize the place….
ORWELL sure would though….
right4life on May 30, 2008 at 4:06 PM
flenser on May 30, 2008 at 4:03 PM
and how absurd is that?
Thanks for helping me illustrate the absurd.
bridgetown on May 30, 2008 at 4:06 PM
Er Hem.
http://threepanelsoul.com/view.php?date=2007-06-18
TheUnrepentantGeek on May 30, 2008 at 4:06 PM
right, just like killing babies (abortion)
right4life on May 30, 2008 at 4:07 PM
Just for the record, LoL. I am not gay. So, keep your little jabs about My lifestyle to yourself.
I am married to a man. I am a woman.
But, I am able to think clearly in terms of gay couplings.
bridgetown on May 30, 2008 at 4:08 PM
Recall you grade school civics class, flenser. Do you remember the saying, “majority rules, minority rights.” The courts exist to bar the majority from infringing upon the rights of the minority. Extremist, fundamentalist Christians (not a majority but certainly numerous) are trying to impose a discriminatory view of marriage upon gays (a minority).
DCGamer on May 30, 2008 at 4:08 PM
they do have the same rights. they can marry anyone of the opposite sex they want to.
so since you want gays to be able to marry, how about polygamists/polyandrists??? why not?
right4life on May 30, 2008 at 4:09 PM
really, where is that in the constitution? its not.
Extremist fundamentalist GAYS are trying to impose a discriminatory view of marriage, speech, thought uopn christians.
right4life on May 30, 2008 at 4:10 PM
And 100 years before that, burned perhaps. Fast forward to today.
JiangxiDad on May 30, 2008 at 4:10 PM
the founders would have used you as a prime example of why women shouldn’t be allowed to vote.
right4life on May 30, 2008 at 4:11 PM
where you’re arrested, and imprisoned for opposing the gay lifestyle.
right4life on May 30, 2008 at 4:12 PM
Now you have crossed the line. That is offensive.
DCGamer on May 30, 2008 at 4:13 PM
you crossed that line long ago. but I know some pigs are more equal than others…
right4life on May 30, 2008 at 4:13 PM
You don’t think that the whole gay marriage case rests on libertarianism?
Only if you focus on those few words to the exclusion of everything else said in the DofI, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and other documments of thr era. And only if you ignore the actual practice of the Founders.
The DofI also stresses the right of the people to self-government, and to cast off old forms of government and make news ones more congenial to them.
The apparent contradiction is explained when you realise that “life, liberty, and the pursuit” of happiness did not mean for the Founders what it does for us. That believed and expected that everyone would be in substantial agreement about what the “pursuit of happiness” involved. And they never thought that they were supporting gay marriage in signing off on that phrase.
flenser on May 30, 2008 at 4:15 PM
right4life on May 30, 2008 at 4:11 PM
You have revealed that honest, rational and thoughtful communication with you is an impossibility.
I love to shine the light long enough to reveal the Truths of others.
You claim christian beliefs and I don’t think you know what it is to follow the Christ Jesus’ teachings.
bridgetown on May 30, 2008 at 4:15 PM
DC. “Gays” are a self-proclaimed minority, a separate class of people. Many don’t accept that, and not for religious reasons.
Why can’t others self-identify as a class and demand special rights?
JiangxiDad on May 30, 2008 at 4:16 PM
I suspect you know what “non sequitur” means. If not, you should look it up.
flenser on May 30, 2008 at 4:17 PM
my how judgmental!!! but of course you’re never judgmental of gays, now are you??
hypocrite.
your ‘light’ is very dark.
right4life on May 30, 2008 at 4:19 PM
JiangxiDad on May 30, 2008 at 4:16 PM
What special rights are being demanded? Only one, that I know of. To get married. Oh the horrors!
bridgetown on May 30, 2008 at 4:19 PM
Proof? You cannot assert that everyone would agree on the meaning. They most certainly did not. That is the beauty of the U.S. Constitution. It was a minimalist document that planned for future interpretation and re-interpretation.
DCGamer on May 30, 2008 at 4:19 PM
Are you seriously going to try to argue that Jesus Christ was/is in favor of gay marriage? That his teachings require Christians today to support gay marriage?
Really?
flenser on May 30, 2008 at 4:20 PM
I do. However, you said earlier that the site was crawling with libertarians so I thought you meant in other threads as well. (I am interested in knowing other examples when they occur, as I don’t know exactly what I am or how to call myself).
No they don’t mean the same things now. But they didn’t mean the same things before the Founders wrote it either. I’m not sure how that is supposed to persuade me of what’s right.
JiangxiDad on May 30, 2008 at 4:20 PM
Oh please. quit the snippy stuff.
JiangxiDad on May 30, 2008 at 4:21 PM
right4life on May 30, 2008 at 4:19 PM
I did not say that you did not know what it is to follow the Christ’s teachings. I said I don’t think you do.
Yes, that is a judgement of your rationale for your arguments.
I will be judgemental of gay people when they make such absurd arguments as well. I hardly think it’s hypocritical at all.
bridgetown on May 30, 2008 at 4:22 PM
I think you are switching back and forth between issues. One issue is historical fact. I think its very much a historical fact that the Founders were not on board with the whole left-wing individualist agenda, of which gay marriage is a part.
If I’m trying to persuade you of anything, it’s of the historical record. I’ll employ different arguments if I try to persuade you of what’s right.
flenser on May 30, 2008 at 4:24 PM
I’m not arguing about what Jesus Christ thought about gay marriage because Jesus never spoke on it at all. Jesus taught Love your neighbor, for one. That is what I speak of when I speak of Jesus’ teachings.
You cannot claim that jesus teaches you to judge a man immoral to marry another man. Jesus teaches you that YOU are NOT that judge.
bridgetown on May 30, 2008 at 4:24 PM
If you want a fight, I’ll be happy to oblige. If not, don’t give me that crap.
flenser on May 30, 2008 at 4:26 PM
I know we won’t be able to have a meeting of the minds on this, and I have said before why I think it’s special rights. It’s because I don’t believe homosexuality is pre-determined before birth. Therefore I don’t believe there are people called gays, only behavior. Therefore I don’t think that behavior ought to be sanctioned by society any more than some other differing behaviors (polygamy for ex). But, if I did believe that people were born gay, I would be in favor of gay marriage, and any laws necessary to protect the rights of gay people. I can certainly understand why some people have the opposite opinion from me.
JiangxiDad on May 30, 2008 at 4:26 PM
but somehow I manage to back up my ‘absurd’ arguments with links…but you are unable to.
right4life on May 30, 2008 at 4:27 PM
The Bible, (which Christians hold to be God’s word, all of it) is as clear as it can be with respect to homosexuality.
Anyone who things that the central message of Christ was “judge not lest you be judged” has never read him.
flenser on May 30, 2008 at 4:30 PM
What crap? You said “ In America at the time of the Founding you’d have been tarred, feathered, and ridden out of town on a rail for your indulging in your “lifestyle”.
I said 100 years before that, you would have been burned. The founders would have presumably found that barbaric. So if the morality is relative to it’s time, how should we consider homosexuality today?
You said “non-sequitur.” Seems pretty “sequitur” to me.
JiangxiDad on May 30, 2008 at 4:31 PM
this is really laughable. Jesus came to fulfill the law, where homosexuality is explicity condemned. and yes are to judge what is sin, and what is not. otherwise anything goes!!
hate to tell you, but the Bible is inspired by God, and Jesus is God, so He is the ultimate author of all that is in the bible.
right4life on May 30, 2008 at 4:31 PM
JiangxiDad on May 30, 2008 at 4:26 PM
I completely understand and I want to thank you for speaking rationally and respectfully.
We simply don’t know that it is not pre-determined before birth. So, how can we even go further with this argument? Know what I mean?
I just don’t see how two consenting adults engaging in a love affair harms anyone.
this polygamy thing….totally different concept. I have not been convinced that children are not forced to learn that this is acceptable to be forced to marry an elder man of a cult. So..whole different field there.
I am simply discussing two adults engaging in love relationships, by their own rights, by their own opinions and wants. Nobody is forced.
bridgetown on May 30, 2008 at 4:32 PM
obviously it is not.
right4life on May 30, 2008 at 4:32 PM
Fine. We need the two combined. These laws are being changed in the here and now, and I woke up in NY this morning to a new regime.
JiangxiDad on May 30, 2008 at 4:33 PM
why? you are unable to answer this.
right4life on May 30, 2008 at 4:33 PM
right4life on May 30, 2008 at 4:31 PM
the only link I would use to back up my argument with you is a link to the teachings of Jesus the Christ. From the New Testament.
There is no condemnation for a gay lifestyle.
bridgetown on May 30, 2008 at 4:33 PM
He never spoke of bestiality either. By your logic, that means he was cool with it.
Jesus does not teach that.
flenser on May 30, 2008 at 4:34 PM
right4life on May 30, 2008 at 4:33 PM
huh? I believe I did give my answer.
bridgetown on May 30, 2008 at 4:34 PM
I give up.
Wow, have I spent a long time here.
I enjoy the back and forth everyone. Thanks for playing. lol~
I guess we’ll all just have to agree to disagree.
But, I will continue to live my life loving others, even if they take a mate of the same sex.
I’m sorry, but I just gotta be like that.
bridgetown on May 30, 2008 at 4:36 PM
maybe you should try reading the Bible sometimes…
1 Corinthians 6:9
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,
Romans 1:
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice the
and these words are inspired by the Holy Spirit..who is One with Jesus.
right4life on May 30, 2008 at 4:38 PM
True. The question is what means can be employed against this sort of thing, and what means are being employed for it.
The means being employed for it include the assumption that left-wing individualism is part of the fabric of America. Pointing out that this is false rebuts part of the gay marriage argument.
flenser on May 30, 2008 at 4:38 PM
flenser on May 30, 2008 at 4:34 PM
again, since you missed it. Animals cannot agree to sex with a human being. They cannot be asked. They cannot answer. This is a forced act on an unwilling being.
Just like HETEROSexual Rape is.
So, one has Nothing to do with the other.
what am I doing…I told myself I’m outta here. LoL, okay, I lied…lol, sorry.
bridgetown on May 30, 2008 at 4:39 PM
you’re the one who missed it..totally.
right4life on May 30, 2008 at 4:40 PM
One would think Christ could manage to discuss things with his ideological opponents in a kind, respectful, civilized manner regardless of the behavior of said opponents.
TheUnrepentantGeek on May 30, 2008 at 4:40 PM
I get the impression that the main person you love is yourself, as this disgustingly self-congratulatory remark reveals. But then, that pretty much defines modern liberalism. It really boils down to “What a wonderful person I am!”.
flenser on May 30, 2008 at 4:41 PM
You’re all wrong. On both sides. Both of these arguments are being presented with more holes than swiss cheese.
First off, on the anti marriage side, its about nothing but power and maintaining the status quo. It’s not a fear that everyone will turn gay, it’s about the possibility that the gay community will gain a larger foot hold and have some power in this nation and actually be able to advance their agenda.
Now on the pro marriage side, it’s all about power and changing the status quo. Gays want a voice gays want power, gays want to be equal in that they wish to be better than everyone else, jut like you and me. There are a lot of ways to amass wealth and power with marriage.
So where my gay friends may just want to love each other and have that love recognized, the “gay community” isn’t all rainbows and love ins…they’re interested in long term family wealth and power, just like you and me and just like our founding fathers were 270 years ago. Of course they have an agenda, just like you and me, and they want to move on that agenda, just like you and me.
I’m neither for nor against gay marriage, I guess I just don’t care enough about it….it really kind of seems like a non issue to me. It won’t change the way I make money, it won’t change the way I live my life, and since I’m very ok with homosexuality, it won’t change the way I raise my kids. If it’s a good home I’ll let my kids visit it, I don’t care if its 2 moms 2 dads whatever.
beefytee on May 30, 2008 at 4:41 PM
1) I’m not as good as He is.
2) I have been respectful and civilized…who are you to judge that I have not?
right4life on May 30, 2008 at 4:41 PM
Only if one had never read the Bible.
flenser on May 30, 2008 at 4:41 PM
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. I enjoy debating those who use reason and make intelligent comments, even if we disagree (JiangxiDad). You cannot debate this issue with fundamentalist Christians, however. They believe with 100% certainty that their interpretation of the Bible is the only one. Then cannot be persuaded to even think a little bit outside their very small box.
DCGamer on May 30, 2008 at 4:42 PM
obviously it will. but you will be one of those who has nothing to fear from the gay agenda, because you will go along with it.
right4life on May 30, 2008 at 4:43 PM
ever hear of projection?
right4life on May 30, 2008 at 4:43 PM
I notice that for you liberals, everthing is a matter of “interpetation”, at least if the matter at hand is not favorable to you. In other instances everything is completely cut and dried.
flenser on May 30, 2008 at 4:45 PM
I get that too. The nobody is forced argument is a strong one for me. I have only one answer, which I don’t think you’ll like. I don’t want my kids taught in school that homosexual behavior is innate. I don’t want my kids taught in school that homosexual behavior is an equal alternative to heterosexual behavior. By having a law allowing gay marriage, it’s as if the government gives it’s approval to the idea that homosexuality is pre-determined, establishes a special minority called “gays”, and gives it’s seal of approval to the behavior itself. And since I live in NY, this is what I now face.
JiangxiDad on May 30, 2008 at 4:45 PM
I’m sure the money changers in the temple would have been amused to hear about how civil and reasonable Christ was.
flenser on May 30, 2008 at 4:46 PM
QED
DCGamer on May 30, 2008 at 4:47 PM
Of course children need the influence of a mother and a father.
Don’t permit these leftist/secularists to condemn you and other Christians for judging. They love that one!!! LOL
We are told to speak out against sin and how to do so.
Remember the following:
Matthew 7
1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.
The passage is not teaching “NOT to judge” just “HOW to judge”.
Matthew 19
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
sinsing on May 30, 2008 at 4:48 PM
No, you are not. You are discussing gay marriage. You are discussing forcing everybody else to recognize gay marriage as a legally binding contract and institution, one binding on them. You are NOT discussing two adults in a love relationship. That is a completely different thing.
flenser on May 30, 2008 at 4:49 PM
you’re right, I should have just said:
John 8:44
” You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
right4life on May 30, 2008 at 4:50 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next »