New York State rejects Gay marriage

[ron]

Where did I say I wanted MORE families?

Clearly you are implying things that I have NOT written. Now I would advocate STRONG family structures.

But as you seem to favor a reduction of the species, I can understand why you'd want WEAK families as there are many sociological studies that show that broken families, families without a traditional dominant father figure, and weak family structures lead to children who grow up with all sorts of problems. Specifically boys tend to have lower grades in school, higher disciplinary problems in school, higher arrest rates, and higher rates of incarceration.

But if there was a gay household that had two males, would that child grow up to become some wunderkind? While we're at it, let's outlaw single mothers! Only allow divorce to occur when the husband can find a suitable man to transfer his wife and kids to.

 

[lashicoN]

Can you image if Chuck Norris and Steven Seagal got married and adopted a baby? Whoa.

 

[melensdad]

But if there was a gay household that had two males, would that child grow up to become some wunderkind? While we're at it, let's outlaw single mothers! Only allow divorce to occur when the husband can find a suitable man to transfer his wife and kids to.

Can you image if Chuck Norris and Steven Seagal got married and adopted a baby? Whoa.

I love when people use illogic to try to defeat simple logic. Facts are facts and sociological and even criminal problems increase when there is the absence of a strong traditional family. Yes, these same problems can exist inside of a strong traditional family but they are statistically minimal, while outside of a strong traditional family these same problems become so statistically relevant that they approach the norm.

Two males does not necessarily = 1 strong male father figure.
Two females does not = 1 strong male father figure.
Single female does not = 1 strong male father figure.

Male and Female generally = 1 strong male father figure and 1 strong female mother figure.

You guys want to legalize gay marriage, and buck biological and sociological fact, feel free to do. You want to extend legal partnership bonds to unions that are not traditional, again feel free. But don't ask me for more tax money to pay for the health premiums of the life-partner if you work for the city/county or state. Don't ask me, as a private employer to extend benefits that I choose to provide to traditional couples to you (which of you wants the maternity coverage?). Nobody has factored in the actual economic cost to extending benefits but I've certainly considered them. Its just as unreasonable for you to ask me to cover your butt-buddy's AIDS treatments as it is for a woman to ask me to pay for her abortion. I'm not going to do it.

 

[haldir]

Good to know we have so many people openly seeking the destruction of God, Family and eventually the country.

 

[melensdad]

Good to know we have so many people openly seeking the destruction of God, Family and eventually the country.

Eventually that is exactly where this type of illogic will lead. When you support that which is wrong, for the sake of some so-called enlightened choice, then you destroy the very fabric of the society that binds us together in some logical way. It is only logical to try to maintain strong families. We can see the crime and the chaos caused by weak families by simply looking at some of our inner-city areas where 4 men father 6 children with 1 woman and nobody is sure who is raising the kids other than the street gangs. This is not just a single race issue but occurs in every race, in every western nation where adults abdicate their responsibility. So many here argue for individual responsibility but now some want the state to come in and destroy the concept of marriage/family?

 

[rambone]

I will say this: genocide, or the murder of millions of people, can easily happen in a "non-violent" way. It is made possible when people lose their right/ability to own property & protect themselves. This is often the case under collectivist systems of government where the food is only distributed by permission of state. Tens of millions of people starved to death in the 20th century because of the starvation caused by their communist leaders (i.e. Stalin, Mao).

 

[Paco Bedejo]

You want to extend legal partnership bonds to unions that are not traditional, again feel free. But don't ask me for more tax money to pay for the health premiums of the life-partner if you work for the city/county or state. Don't ask me, as a private employer to extend benefits that I choose to provide to traditional couples to you (which of you wants the maternity coverage?).

There's the problem. Those benefits shouldn't exist. As I've already said, get rid of those preferential treatments & this 'hot issue' quickly becomes a non-issue.

Your employer or local/state/federal government doesn't pay for your home/auto/business insurance, so why should they pay for your health insurance? Furthermore, why does health insurance cover maintenance while auto insurance does not?

The whole system is jacked & each of these 'hot issues' are just symptoms of a systemic problem. That problem is the nanny-state which too many of us have welcomed into our lives with open arms (myself included).

 

[ATF Consumer]

I love when people use illogic to try to defeat simple logic. Facts are facts and sociological and even criminal problems increase when there is the absence of a strong traditional family. Yes, these same problems can exist inside of a strong traditional family but they are statistically minimal, while outside of a strong traditional family these same problems become so statistically relevant that they approach the norm.

Two males does not necessarily = 1 strong male father figure.
Two females does not = 1 strong male father figure.
Single female does not = 1 strong male father figure.

Male and Female generally = 1 strong male father figure and 1 strong female mother figure.

You guys want to legalize gay marriage, and buck biological and sociological fact, feel free to do. You want to extend legal partnership bonds to unions that are not traditional, again feel free. But don't ask me for more tax money to pay for the health premiums of the life-partner if you work for the city/county or state. Don't ask me, as a private employer to extend benefits that I choose to provide to traditional couples to you (which of you wants the maternity coverage?). Nobody has factored in the actual economic cost to extending benefits but I've certainly considered them. Its just as unreasonable for you to ask me to cover your butt-buddy's AIDS treatments as it is for a woman to ask me to pay for her abortion. I'm not going to do it.

While I will agree with most of what you've stated...on the last part about tax dollars going toward the partner's health care, I think the same should apply to male and female unions. Why should my tax dollars go to support a state employee's wife who gets a bun in the oven every year? I don't want to pay for someone's unhealthy lifestyle, eating donuts and smoking all of their life. If it's not good for same sex unions, it shouldn't be good for traditional marriages either.

 

[ATF Consumer]

Eventually that is exactly where this type of illogic will lead. When you support that which is wrong, for the sake of some so-called enlightened choice, then you destroy the very fabric of the society that binds us together in some logical way. It is only logical to try to maintain strong families. We can see the crime and the chaos caused by weak families by simply looking at some of our inner-city areas where 4 men father 6 children with 1 woman and nobody is sure who is raising the kids other than the street gangs. This is not just a single race issue but occurs in every race, in every western nation where adults abdicate their responsibility. So many here argue for individual responsibility but now some want the state to come in and destroy the concept of marriage/family?

If you belong to a church that supports your views, and your church is good about spreading their word...bringing in more families to the congregation, I don't see what you are worried about.

 

[melensdad]

There's the problem. Those benefits shouldn't exist. As I've already said, get rid of those preferential treatments & this 'hot issue' quickly becomes a non-issue.

I totally agree. I don't think anything I wrote was in disagreement with what you wrote.

While I will agree with most of what you've stated...on the last part about tax dollars going toward the partner's health care, I think the same should apply to male and female unions.

No argument from me on this. I'm all for personal responsibility. But as Paco Bedejo has pointed out, the issue is all about getting benefits for their butt buddies.

If you belong to a church . . . I don't see what you are worried about.

I never brought religion of any type into any of my posts on this topic, and I don't believe I ever expressed any worries. My posts have, I believe, been factual and based on real world issues and problems.

 

[ATF Consumer]

I totally agree. I don't think anything I wrote was in disagreement with what you wrote.



No argument from me on this. I'm all for personal responsibility. But as Paco Bedejo has pointed out, the issue is all about getting benefits for their butt buddies.



I never brought religion of any type into any of my posts on this topic, and I don't believe I ever expressed any worries. My posts have, I believe, been factual and based on real world issues and problems.

It's been settled then, we all want and need less government in our lives and all will be happy

 

[Ramen]

Traditional in a religious sense. For example, I have a friend who is a devout Catholic. He went to the courthouse with his fiance and signed the paperwork strictly for insurance purposes. They have wedding plans in the near future, but the legal side of it could not wait. In his mind, he is not truly married untill he says his vows at the church. He could really care less what the government recognizes. For him, it's all about being married in the eyes of the lord.

I agree with this. I wish the government had nothing to do with marriage. People could enter into contracts in order to take care of things like money, property, and other legal matters. When I got married, it was when I said my vows in front of God and a bunch of witnesses. It had nothing to do with the state. Homosexuality is wrong, but I don't have a right to stop someone from exercising it. I can only continue to be a good witness and pray for them.

If the state is 100% out of the marriage business (which is why the state is involved, to make money) then people can make individual choices about their lives. And I don't have to recognize two men or two women as being "married", which is likely the main reason that so many people are against court ordered gay marriage.

 

[Cat-Herder]

the way i see it, a "marriage" is a civil union recognized not only by the state, but sanctioned by a church. If the church says gays can't be married, well, they need to change their denomination. But that doesn't mean they have to forfeit their state-recognized union.
I think the state should recognize unions between two people, and the church can do what they want with regards to "marriage".
just my .02

 

[Ramen]

the way i see it, a "marriage" is a civil union recognized not only by the state, but sanctioned by a church. If the church says gays can't be married, well, they need to change their denomination. But that doesn't mean they have to forfeit their state-recognized union.
I think the state should recognize unions between two people, and the church can do what they want with regards to "marriage".
just my .02

Very similiar to my views. One of the major reasons this thinking fails in today's system is the Public School system. If there were no public schools, and people were responsible for their child's education (home, private, co-op, whatever) then people wouldn't have to worry about teachers teaching their children that they have to accept homosexuality as normal.

 

[Son of Liberty]

What should be taught is that its not your job or any other humans to pass spiritual judgement on other people. If people spent more time worry about themselves and less time about who sleeping with who. The world would be a better place.

 

[mettle]

What should be taught is that its not your job or any other humans to pass spiritual judgement on other people. If people spent more time worry about themselves and less time about who sleeping with who. The world would be a better place.

So, hunger in third world countries would be solved by this eh? Who would have thought? Just changing this one thing would make the world a better place?
Wow. A cure all, like the .gov healthcare plan! YESSS!

 

[antsi]

I have a friend who is a devout Catholic. He went to the courthouse with his fiance and signed the paperwork strictly for insurance purposes. They have wedding plans in the near future, but the legal side of it could not wait. In his mind, he is not truly married untill he says his vows at the church. He could really care less what the government recognizes. For him, it's all about being married in the eyes of the lord.

This is precisely why I think the government should get out of the marriage business altogether.

The government does have a legitimate role in inheritance, property law, power of attorney, who gets to make medical decisons for an incapacitated person, etc. So let's package all that into a purely legal institution. Civil union, domestic partnership, call it what you will.

Deciding who is married in the eyes of God is none of the government's business whatsoever. Under my system, each church could set its own standards of who they will consider 'married.' And the good ones will not be basing this on what Oprah said last week, or what the latest popularity poll said.

PS - oops, just saw where cat herder and ramen said pretty much the same thing. Great minds, I guess ;-)

 

[gund]

So, hunger in third world countries would be solved by this eh? Who would have thought? Just changing this one thing would make the world a better place?
Wow. A cure all, like the .gov healthcare plan! YESSS!

My head exploded.

 

[5.56'aholic]

What should be taught is that its not your job or any other humans to pass spiritual judgement on other people. If people spent more time worry about themselves and less time about who sleeping with who. The world would be a better place.

most people do not care who is sleeping with who, it is those that choose to buck the system and be different then reach out for acceptance of their behavior that are worried. The rest of us really do not care, just leave us out of it and do not expect us to give a nod when you want approval.

 

[groovatron]

I love when people use illogic to try to defeat simple logic. Facts are facts and sociological and even criminal problems increase when there is the absence of a strong traditional family. Yes, these same problems can exist inside of a strong traditional family but they are statistically minimal, while outside of a strong traditional family these same problems become so statistically relevant that they approach the norm.

Two males does not necessarily = 1 strong male father figure.
Two females does not = 1 strong male father figure.
Single female does not = 1 strong male father figure.

Male and Female generally = 1 strong male father figure and 1 strong female mother figure.

You guys want to legalize gay marriage, and buck biological and sociological fact, feel free to do. You want to extend legal partnership bonds to unions that are not traditional, again feel free. But don't ask me for more tax money to pay for the health premiums of the life-partner if you work for the city/county or state. Don't ask me, as a private employer to extend benefits that I choose to provide to traditional couples to you (which of you wants the maternity coverage?). Nobody has factored in the actual economic cost to extending benefits but I've certainly considered them. Its just as unreasonable for you to ask me to cover your butt-buddy's AIDS treatments as it is for a woman to ask me to pay for her abortion. I'm not going to do it.

Whoa....slow down speed racer. I think you have just confirmed my suspicions. How can you expect someone to take you seriously with statements as ignorant as that? You spent a bit of time bashing my posts, now it's time for you to dig up some facts to support your "informed" viewpoint. Go ahead my friend, I challenge you. Show me your "traditional family" facts......Do you not realize how bigoted your statement above is?....Are you that blind?....AIDS has affected many millions of people in the world of all races, religions, and sexualities. This statement is just flat out rude and inconsiderate to those who have had to deal with AIDS. You need to work on your table manners.