New York state just passed same sex marriage bill

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

The people don't have to allow themselves to become destabilized based on fear. Humans have the ability to adapt and to overcome anything. Besides, you can replace same-sex marriage with any other controversial issue and make the same vague argument.

See, watch this:

Of course rock music is not good for society, but the communists, capitalists and the zionists among us want to ruin our society and they have done a great job so far.

These groups haven't ruined society, people in general have allowed for their society to become destabilized because they don't like change, no matter how trivial and harmless the change is. Like is the case with same-sex marriage. It's harmless, but people like to make it into something more, they exaggerate things, they allow their irrational fear to ruin themselves. Fear is contagious.

edit on 25-6-2011 by arbitrarygeneraiist because: (no reason given)

Same Sex marriage = Rock n Roll
LOL

Those have to be the biggest polar opposites of each other in everyway...well except for the lustful sex

Originally posted by Greywey
Either way, simple truth is that because the meaning of marriage is now blurred, this will dilute the value of all marriages. If everyone gets to change the meaning of marriage, getting married will as as casual as getting a driver's license and not taken seriously. In the future, the nuclear family will be devalued even more than it is now.

This is one of the most bogus argument - - that always enters these discussions.

Nuclear family? Simply means "Parents and children" as separate from Extended family of grandparents - aunts - uncles - etc.

What gender the parents are is inconsequential .

reply to post by goodday123


Lol it was just meant to show how any vague issue can be used as a way to distract and destabilize people. But the issue mostly depends upon how much attention and value people put in them. So really people are distracting and destabilizing themselves in that regard.

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist

That's a poor argument. It makes little sense and really can't even be compared. Red has always been red and green has always been green, unless the person is color blind.

Marriage, however, has evolved and changed over time. Marriage has never always been about just one thing. Static physical colors cannot reasonably be related to intangible concepts that are in a state of flux, and which have been shown to change and evolve over time. Marriage is such a concept, while red and green are physical colors that were given names. Take for instance how in the United States marriage is a legal institution that is more befitting of a contract than that of a symbolic and ceremonial practice meant to unite man and wife based on love.

Maybe I'm just blind to sexual attraction when it comes to legal consenting adults engaging in relationships with each other and marriage with each other. I don't see how a consenting adult engaging in a relationship with another consenting adult is any of your business to begin with.

The definition of marriage has not changed over time, and has never included homosexuals. The only "state of flux" here is the one that is happening right now as part of an insidious agenda to undermine gender identity and the family unit.

As I have said all throughout this thread, I have no issue with a legally binding domestic partnership contract recognized by the state, but it is not marriage.

Oh, and by the way, red is not always red, nor has it always been red...

One study compared some young children from England with kids from a tribe in Nambia. In the English language, young kids usually learn 11 basic colors (black, white, gray, red, green, blue, yellow, pink, orange, purple and brown) but in Himba it's only five. For instance, they lump red, orange and pink together and call it "serandu."

If you showed the Himba toddler a pink card and then later showed him a red one and ask if they're the same card, the kid would often mistakenly say yes -- because they're both "serandu."

www.cracked.com...

Being "color blind" is not progressive, it is degenerative. That primitive African tribe has not evolved far enough to distinguish between certain colors.

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist
reply to post by goodday123

 

That still relies on faith in the word of someone else. You really don't know one way or another, which was my point.

How do I rely on someone elses word when I am speaking from my own experiences.

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist
People can find differences in anything and use that as justification to act in an adverse way to someone else. They don't really need religion for that.

Yeah - - - like the NOM (National Organization for Marriage).

They want revenge and are now targeting the Republicans who voted for Equal Marriage Rights - - - and our out to get them fired.

Such a moral loving group.

reply to post by krill

I personally am glad New York has done this and from my perspective this issue should be addressed State by State. Then, those who don't want to be around it can move to a state where such is not. This seems to me to be a very good way of beginning to draw the lines where I suspect other issues like pornography, prostitution and drug use would most likely follow in the same states that legalize Gay Marriage. The quick of wit will realize what this would inevitably lead to and that is why it won't happen but it is a thought.

reply to post by CobraCommander


The concept of marriage has changed over time. The colors green and red have not. Therein lies the uncomparable differences between colors and marriage.

Colors remain colors no matter what name or adjectives people use to describe them. The color that is red has always been red, however the color red exists in different tones and shades. As does the color green.

So there you have it. You said "Oh, and by the way, red is not always red, nor has it always been red..." so you're implying that colors have changed. That acts contrary to your argument. You were trying to compare and contrast colors and marriage in favor of your position, but you just said that the color red hasn't always been what it was. Same goes for marriage. So I don't see why it shouldn't be changed.

reply to post by goodday123


Because you're placing faith and value in the words, testimony, and observation of other people who have claimed to have witnessed God, etc.

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist
I don't see how a consenting adult engaging in a relationship with another consenting adult is any of your business to begin with.

Indeed. Look I don't give a stuff what other people get up to. I've been up to a fair amount of 'stuff' myself . But enough with the gay pride marches etc. So you need to stick your bits up someone's behind? Just get on with it already. But keep it in the bedroom thank you.
Oh and by the way. Just because you were born that way inclined doesn't make it right. By the same logic, paedophilia is ok, so is having sex with the neighbours dog. Maybe we will be having 'canine pride' marches?

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist
reply to post by CobraCommander

 

The concept of marriage has changed over time. The colors green and red have not. Therein lies the uncomparable differences between colors and marriage.

Colors remain colors no matter what name or adjectives people use to describe them. The color that is red has always been red, however the color red exists in different tones and shades. As does the color green.

So there you have it. You said "Oh, and by the way, red is not always red, nor has it always been red..." so you're implying that colors have changed. That acts contrary to your argument. You were trying to compare and contrast colors and marriage in favor of your position, but you just said that the color red hasn't always been what it was. Same goes for marriage. So I don't see why it shouldn't be changed.

Pink is like red, but not quite. And it's pink when I turn out the lights. Lol.

Seriously though, I am sorry you are unable to grasp the complexity of my point. But to recap and try to break it down a little for you, no, the concept of marriage had NOT changed over time. It has always been between man and woman.

With my example, I was not showing that colors have changed, but that people's perceptions have changed... and evolved. It is important to make certain distinctions in order to greater define our reality. And, as I said, breaking down those lines, becoming blind to those distinctions and definitions is degenerative, not progressive. It would not be better to be more like a primitive African tribe who does not know the difference between red and orange. And no matter how important it may be to some lobbyist for some group of artists, it would also not be in the best interests of society to mandate that both red and green be called green from now on.

Originally posted by goodday123

If your parents weren't divorced, did that effect you personally? Did it change your society?
If your a parent, the decisions made by other parents in society and how they raise their children didn't effect you personally...so being a parent does that effect how you raise your child.

I can't see how changes in your society can't effect you...unless you live in the mountains or elsewhere. Public opinion change ideas, laws and attitudes...and you have to live with it

No, my parents weren't divorced, but they were separated for a short time. For me personally, life pretty much continued on as usual, before and after. Society wasn't particularly impacted by my parents marital status. Rather, I doubt society even noticed.

No, I'm not a parent. If I were, I would raise my child how I chose to, regardless of how others chose to raise their children.

I can't see how someone else's marriage is going to effect me, other than if I'm invited to the wedding, in which case I need a gift and something to wear. If two people, regardless of gender, love each other and want to get married, good for them. I wish them all the best. It still doesn't have any effect on me, personally.

Yes, public opinion can change ideas, laws and attitudes. This topic is just one example. I have to live with your attitude, and you have to live with mine. I choose not to hate or discriminate. It's my opinion the world would be a better place if more people felt the same. Obviously your opinion is different. *shrugs*

Oh, and I do live in the mountains, but that's neither here nor there.

I would like to clarify what seems to be a major misunderstanding about the new bill.The bill has an amendment stating that no religous or non-profit orginazation will be forced to perform a gay marriage,Also they may not be taken to court and sued over refusing to perform a gay marriage.There is also in that same amendment a clause stating that any court finds that that amendment to be illegal and overrides that amendment it causes the entire bill to also to illegal.

As for the argument that gay marriage will lead to incest,beastiality, or marrying household items. Just remember at one time the same argument was made about interracial marriage.There is always going to be some people who refuse to believe that people different than themselfs have the same value and therefore should have the same rights as they do.

Originally posted by krill
I would like to clarify what seems to be a major misunderstanding about the new bill.The bill has an amendment stating that no religous or non-profit orginazation will be forced to perform a gay marriage,Also they may not be taken to court and sued over refusing to perform a gay marriage.There is also in that same amendment a clause stating that any court finds that that amendment to be illegal and overrides that amendment it causes the entire bill to also to illegal.

As for the argument that gay marriage will lead to incest,beastiality, or marrying household items. Just remember at one time the same argument was made about interracial marriage.There is always going to be some people who refuse to believe that people different than themselfs have the same value and therefore should have the same rights as they do.

I think this bill is going to get overturned in the courts. But in the meantime, it has allowed our entire political leadership, especially the Republicans, to scape-goat the issue. Indeed, for many Republicans this has been great political capitol among their constituency and in bargaining leverage against Dems.

I think it goes without saying that no chuch should be forced to perform a marriage outside the tenets of their faith, whether it be gay marriage, polygamy, or even after a divorce.

And drawing the comparison between interracial marriage and gay marriage is invalid, as even in interracial marriage they are still man and woman. That reasoning would only hold valid if you subscribed to the opinion that all races were not human.

I have yet to hear a rational argument why same sex marriage shouldn't be legal.

if any of you narrow minded bigots can come up with a rational reason why gay couples
shouldn't marry, by all means, speak up.

I love NewYork!!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by arufon
I have yet to hear a rational argument why same sex marriage shouldn't be legal.

if any of you narrow minded bigots can come up with a rational reason why gay couples
shouldn't marry, by all means, speak up.

I love NewYork!!!!!!!!!!

Because same sex union is not marriage.