New York Legalizes same sex marriage.

[Aulos]

Now how long until this gets taken down?

I'm just being honest. It seems like gay marriage can never stay up anywhere. Even though it is an overwhelmingly one-sided issue when you think about it.

I want to be happy, but I've just seen what has happened. Especially all of that nonsense in California.

[Wio]

Some argue that marriage is a private affair, and shouldn't be linked to any kind of benefits on the federal, state, or local levels (as I can already see in this thread). I'm somewhat neutral on the issue - I think there are some instances where it's reasonable and beneficial, and others where it's unnecessary.

Then I offer you this challenge: Name one benefit or reason why legal marriage should exist. Name one. Explain why that benefit or reason can't have its own separate contract, i.e. why it must be bundled with marriage.

It would certainly be a legal hassle to untangle marriage from its role in federal law, though.

There is a non issue--a pointless concern. Just look at all the legal hassle is required to keep the thing around.

I want to be happy, but I've just seen what has happened. Especially all of that nonsense in California.

The nonsense that happened in California can be called nothing else but democracy. The majority of voters in California never agreed to legalize same sex marriage in the first place. It was forced on them by elitist judges. California is more likely an exception rather than a rule.

[Velvet_Nightmare]

Same sex marriage = serious business

I'm glad they finally passed this, one because basic human rights are finally being recognized in the political world, and two, hopefully Lady Gaga will shut the hell up. :|

[I love your music Lady Gaga, don't kill me <3]

[GameGeeks]

The nonsense that happened in California can be called nothing else but democracy. The majority of voters in California never agreed to legalize same sex marriage in the first place. It was forced on them by elitist judges. California is more likely an exception rather than a rule.

Not necessarily. You're probably just looking at one particular poll. More then likely the one by the LA Times. Another poll done by Mervin Field showed 51% favored same sex marriage where as the LA one was 53% in favor of banning it. So if anything it's rather close in California.

[Wio]

Not necessarily. You're probably just looking at one particular poll. More then likely the one by the LA Times. Another poll done by Mervin Field showed 51% favored same sex marriage where as the LA one was 53% in favor of banning it. So if anything it's rather close in California.

Truth: Whenever same sex marriage was put on a ballot in California, it was voted down. Your polls do not matter.

The original ban on same sex marriage was put on a ballot and passed. Elitist California judges figured they undermine that ban based on the constitution. California voters then put a de facto same sex marriage banning ammendment into the California constitution.

[aether]

woot now only if I cared such matters

[bug]

Why are so many people against same sex marriage anyway? I really just don't get it. Well, I do understand some religions are against same-sex marriage, but isn't religion supposed to be separate from government? In the US at least. That being said, I don't see any real reason why same-sex marriages should be illegal. If I ever had the chance to make a country, I would make the votes a little more than a simple yes or no. I would make it so that the voters actually had to put a reason why, and votes without a proper reason would be void. I think that would solve so many issues, like people voting without actually understanding what there voting for or against.

[wolfgirl90]

Last but not least, just look at the thread title. By having legal marriage we must have a legal definition for it, and by defining legal marriage we are bound to discriminate against a group. In many states homosexuals are legally discriminated against, because legal marriage exists. There would be no issue otherwise. Even now, NY probably discriminates against polygamous partnerships by limiting the number of parties per marriage contract and by limiting the number of marriage contracts per person.

Well, NY discriminates against polygamous partnerships by outright banning the practice (its a felony in NY); hell, polygamy is illegal in all 50 states (and most countries), but that's not the point.

 

And speaking of thread titles, despite all the points you made and the responses I made to them, I just going to post a response to this one since we are discussing the legalization of gay marriage in New York not the abolition of legal marriages. I'm not posting a long off topic post.

Hehe...are you honestly blaming legal marriage for the discrimination of homosexuals? We didn't define legal marriage because of some arbitrary need to do so. DOMA was created because a bunch of right wing nuts decided it had to be done because Hawaii was thinking about legalizing same sex marriage, which under the Full Faith and Credit Clause would have forced EVERY state to recognize the marriages. So they said "oh hell naw" and drew the line; now we are slowly removing that line. Homosexual partnerships are being discriminated against because of people's OWN personal (usually religious) definitions of the word "marriage" (and the bigoted lawmakers that agree with them), not because of anything to do with legal marriage (again, marriage is first and foremost, a social union; people place importance on it all on their own and changing how people get married is not going to change that). The same goes for polygamy; the definitions for marriage come from people who want a line drawn because of their own definitions of marriage, not because legal marriage inherently forces us to make a definition.

[Wio]

Well, NY discriminates against polygamous partnerships by outright banning the practice (its a felony in NY); hell, polygamy is illegal in all 50 states (and most countries), but that's not the point.

Your own words:

marriage is first and foremost, a social union;

Don't you think that polygamy fits these standards? How is banning polygamy any less bigoted than banning same sex marriage?

Hehe...are you honestly blaming legal marriage for the discrimination of homosexuals?

My words were clear, concise, and expressed exactly what I wanted to convey. Don't try to simplify them into some straw man with different implications. Nothing that I originally said implied that homophobia itself is caused by having legal marriage. If you don't have legal marriage, then homosexuals would not be legally discriminated against because opposite sex and same sex pairs would be equally without access to a non-existing legal institution.

Homosexual partnerships are being discriminated against because of people's OWN personal (usually religious) definitions of the word "marriage" (and the bigoted lawmakers that agree with them), not because of anything to do with legal marriage

It's not as if by not having legal marriage, people will look for some other way to discriminate legally against homosexuals. Those "bigoted" people are merely defending their own definition of marriage. They couldn't care less if homosexuals had a way of getting the same legal benefits that come with legal marriage. If there was no legal marriage, then they wouldn't (or rather couldn't) defend something that is nonexistent at the expense of discriminating against some demographic.

(again, marriage is first and foremost, a social union; people place importance on it all on their own and changing how people get married is not going to change that)

No, I'm not suggesting "changing how people get married". I'm suggesting "changing how people get legal benefits which traditionally required marriage". No, people won't place importance on those benefits as they would marriage.

In your attempt to totally dismiss the people backing DOMA, you have become delusional about what their actual position is. They think marriage itself is sacred, not individual legal benefits that come with it. They don't care if two people of the same sex want to share a bank account. They don't care if people of the same sex want a contract that shares property (just as importantly from the polygamy perspective, they don't care if people hold multiple instances of such contracts). They don't care if you want to grant a total stranger hospital visitation via some contract.

[Aleyna]

Now if only I wasn't anti-marriage, then I'd be happy...>_>

 

Just kidding. :P

[Furore]

Good for them!
Logic be damned, I want a world where people are free to be in whatever relationship they desire. If they want to be married, marry, if they don't like marriage, don't marry. I'll be cheering when people legalise polygamy.

I've always felt people should have the right to do whatever they want according to their own beliefs so long as they don't involve screwing over another's liberties.

Those who'd stop others from being happy solely because it doesn't fit in with their beliefs are the reason most societies have so many stupid taboos.

[wolfgirl90]

Don't you think that polygamy fits these standards? How is banning polygamy any less bigoted than banning same sex marriage?

If you recall, I didn't say that the banning of polygamy was any less bigoted than banning same sex marriage. Hell, I didn't say anything about the legality of banning it! I merely implied that your position was off. New York is not the only state that bans polygamy; every state does (in New York, it's something you can go to prison for), so there is no point in singling out New York as if its the only state in the wrong or that its position is somehow unique. And most countries ban it, so the United States is not unique in this stance (e.g Canada allows same-sex marriage nationally, but there's a national ban on polygamy), so our institution of marriage is not much different from most countries when it comes to this issue.

But that's not to imply that I support the ban (I am not going to discuss my personal thoughts on the matter because that is not what we are talking about).

If you don't have legal marriage, then homosexuals would not be legally discriminated against because opposite sex and same sex pairs would be equally without access to a non-existing legal institution.

And this couldn't be fixed by, say, including homosexuals as a protected party under the Civil Rights Act? Again, I am not seeing how this really solves anything. I see you trying to kill a rabid dog with an atom bomb. Tearing our current marriage institution asunder will certainly end the whole marriage discrimination thing (since "legal" marriage wouldn't exist), but that is far from necessary, and I don't honestly see what good could come from it (at least, what good it would provide that couldn't be obtained by any other means).

It's as if your solution to stopping two teenagers from fighting over a car they want to drive is to blow it up. Yeah, both sides are equal in that they don't have access to the car (as the car no longer exists), but the issue of both sides wanting transportation remains. As soon as a new car comes, they are going to fight over that too. It makes more sense to do something about the fighting than about the car (replacing the car doesn't stop the fighting; it just changes what the fight's about).

It's not as if by not having legal marriage, people will look for some other way to discriminate legally against homosexuals. Those "bigoted" people are merely defending their own definition of marriage. They couldn't care less if homosexuals had a way of getting the same legal benefits that come with legal marriage. If there was no legal marriage, then they wouldn't (or rather couldn't) defend something that is nonexistent at the expense of discriminating against some demographic.

I glad you are so optimistic about humanity, but history has shown that when humans can't stand something, logic flies right out of the freaking window and they will do anything to get rid of a threat. You don't think people will look for another way to discriminate homosexuals? I honestly don't agree; people will fight about nothing over nothing. Again, I think an attitude adjustment is needed in order to get the cycle to stop. Otherwise, people are going to find any excuse they can to undermine the people they hate, despite the laws around them. Just because the way that people get married and obtain benefits could change does not mean that people will stop fighting about it.

In your attempt to totally dismiss the people backing DOMA, you have become delusional about what their actual position is. They think marriage itself is sacred, not individual legal benefits that come with it. They don't care if two people of the same sex want to share a bank account. They don't care if people of the same sex want a contract that shares property (just as importantly from the polygamy perspective, they don't care if people hold multiple instances of such contracts). They don't care if you want to grant a total stranger hospital visitation via some contract.

And you missed my point as to why I brought it up. You said that legal marriage forces us to create a definition for it. I said that that is not the case because DOMA wasn't created because we NEEDED a definition for legal marriage for the sake of marriage (our country went for 200 years without it); it was created because Hawaii was thinking about legalizing same sax marriage (or rather, the Supreme Court of Hawaii ruled that the state basically didn't have a good enough excuse to prohibit it), so it prompted lawmakers to figure out how to prevent states from being forced to recognize them. I said nothing about rights or the positions of the supporters of DOMA and considering what I was responding to (the fact that legal marriage supposedly requires a definition), I had absolutely no reason to.

The individual rights that come with marriage may not be held as sacred, but that doesn't mean that the religious right doesn't care if homosexuals have them. They think that homosexuality is wrong, "unnatural". Some would rather take a bullet to the head than to face the probable reality of having homosexuals share the same rights that they do, marital or otherwise. They would be damned if a bunch of homosexuals had the same social standing that they do; the fact that homosexuals can get married would just be the tip of the iceberg. Married couples can jointly file taxes, jointly adopt, inherit property from each other, have shared parental rights; they can even get family discounts at the YMCA. As mundane as those rights are, there are honestly a bunch of people who don't want homosexuals to have the same rights they do, which is just one of the reasons why they don't want homosexuals to get married (the fact that marriage is considered sacred only heightens the issue).

If this was simply about marriage (or rather, the execution of an act that some people find sacred), homosexuals would have full rights by now (save for the act of getting married). However, there are several rights that are denied to them, not because certain acts are sacred (although this can applied to certain things), but because they don't want homosexuals to have the same rights as they do.