world

Gay marriage backers say NY vote has national impact

34 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

34 Comments
Login to comment

I am streight, not a gay. I believe in two principals of the US Consitution: Liberty and Equality. Today, that equality won in the state of NY. America is changing.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Good for the NYC economy also. They project it will bring in $180 million over the next 3 years.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Get out of New York City now! God will, no doubt bring his wrath down upon the city. But what if God's hand does not crush New York?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

I'm sure conservatives will find a way to blame Obama for this, although he has taken pains to avoid the fray.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

God will, no doubt bring his wrath down upon the city

Man himself decides what is right for him. Not an invisible god. Same sex marriage is an undeniable right. Middle Age Persecution of homosexuals is not only wrong, it is vile.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Man himself decides what is right for him. Not an invisible god. Same sex marriage is an undeniable right. Middle Age Persecution of homosexuals is not only wrong, it is vile.

What about incest? Polygamy? Bestiality? Are not allowing those also equivalent to "Middle Age persecution"? A society must draw a line somewhere. Unfortunately liberals keep moving the line further and further... until we will one day inhabit a truly depraved society.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Unfortunately liberals keep moving the line further and further... until we will one day inhabit a truly depraved society.

Well said? No. It' s exactly what the Church preached in the dark middle ages.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Unfortunately liberals keep moving the line further and further... until we will one day inhabit a truly depraved society.

Calling a society that would one day be free of prejudice and discrimination of any form as "depraved". Sounds pretty twisted to me.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

This indeed is a Black Day not only for America, but the entire world - I was shocked to see and read this terrible sinful news and further shocked that the Democrat Gov. Andrew Cuomo a Roman Catholic swiftly signed this Bill - What is happening have all the Americans gone bonkers or what - it is time the two principals of the US Constitution: Liberty and Equality be amended - the amendment should be "Liberty and Equality only for the Straight" - if this Satanic curse of Gays and same sex marriages is not stopped and controlled now the whole world will soon perish - NOAH is not around anymore to rescue us this time over.....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@ presto345 Sorry, I was being serious.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"he [Obama] has said his position is “evolving,” and he asked gay activists at a New York City fundraiser "

I laugh out loud every time I read this. Seriously, only an Obama supporter could be be so gullible as to believe this.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

proxy: "Get out of New York City now! God will, no doubt bring his wrath down upon the city. But what if God's hand does not crush New York?"

If god exists, which I very, very much doubt, then he created 'man in his own image' -- he created homosexuals. It is humanity, therefore, that is acting against them and against god. If god doesn't exist, sadly, it's exactly the same thing -- we are persecuting ourselves based solely on a difference of sexual preference.

Deplore: "What about incest? Polygamy? Bestiality? Are not allowing those also equivalent to "Middle Age persecution"? A society must draw a line somewhere. Unfortunately liberals keep moving the line further and further... until we will one day inhabit a truly depraved society."

I think freakashow said it best, calling tolerance 'depraved' is truly absurd.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

With the "right" to marriage though will homosexuals end up basically removing themselves and the genetic tendency from the general population?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Lieberman2012 With the "right" to marriage though will homosexuals end up basically removing themselves and the genetic tendency from the general population?

So only homosexuals people have kids that have homosexual tendencies? Please tell me your not saying that?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Lieberman:

With the "right" to marriage though will homosexuals end up basically removing themselves and the genetic tendency from the general population?

Last time I looked in an anatomy textbook, lesbians were still capable of getting pregnant.

Deplore:

What about incest? Polygamy? Bestiality?

Here we go again. When your arguments fail, bring up these words. Don't tell me, all paedophiles are gays too? And if you have a problem with polygamy, maybe you can go to some muslim country like Indonesia and start campaigning there. Straights are doing a pretty good job of 'desecrating' the sanctity of marriage - just look at the number of divorces, the way some people are getting pregnant, getting married, then divorcing and repeating this willy-nilly. You don't need gays to do that. As they say - you don't want gay marriage then don't marry a gay person.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@ presto345 Sorry, I was being serious.

proxy, I did not mean to insult you or your beliefs. Just like you I stated my opinion. And I can expand on that. God may have dictated the 10 commandments. God may have forbidden homosexuality, but if you believe in the scripts it was God who created humans and their flaws. And God left enforcing of his perceived rules to the same flawed humans. God so far has not intervened in preventing bonds between same sex humans and humans themselves are very much misguided thinking they can or have the right to do the job for him.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What about incest? Polygamy? Bestiality?

In incest lies serious risk of birth defects; society may rightly prohibit that. Polygamy is arguably available, given the merry-go-round divorce rate. Bestiality removes possibility of consent and lies in a realm similar to pedophilia. These are straw men. Mutual consent among two capable adults towards an aim which is loving, not harmful, is what is at question.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@Laguna:

In incest lies serious risk of birth defects; society may rightly prohibit that. Polygamy is arguably available, given the merry-go-round divorce rate. Bestiality removes possibility of consent and lies in a realm similar to pedophilia. These are straw men.

These are not straw men at all - they are the logical result of not enforcing a long held human practice of encouraging the most useful way to preserve the human species. In Darwinian terms, we are talking about rejecting the fittest way of supporting and perpetuating a couples genetics into the future. Homosexuals and yes, even polygamists, pedophiles, and those in incestuous relationships and other types of relationships see laws against their natural predispositions as arbitrary and oppressive.

A law that states that two people of the same sex cannot marry is just as arbitrary as a law that says 18 is the age of consent. A law that says two close relatives cannot be married is arbitrary as well because being related doesn't necessitate that they have offspring that are subject to birth defects (particularly if one is incapable of having children). The Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender community is surely in favor of allowing bisexuals the same rights that gays now have in some states. Therefore, opposition to polygamy must surely be indefensible now. How can anyone who supports gay marriage be opposed to polygamous marriages?

These are all logical reasons for those that believe in traditional marriage to oppose gay marriage other than just religious ones. I am agnostic when it comes to religion and to me this isn't about religion. It's a matter of common sense and a society's ability to create a common morality and defensible mores.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

The Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender community is surely in favor of allowing bisexuals the same rights that gays now have in some states. Therefore, opposition to polygamy must surely be indefensible now. How can anyone who supports gay marriage be opposed to polygamous marriages?

Good point. I am sure there will be a case where a man (or woman) will want to marry the person of the same sex, and marry a person of the opposite sex. Since in 44 states, gay marriage is not allowed, a person from New York could marry a same sex person, and then go to a state where that marriage is not recognized and marry a person of the opposite sex. How is that good for the country?

I have religous beliefs on this issue, but I will keep them to myself. BUt can anyone explain to me in the situation I have just described, how that can be a good thing?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well, when I was in the US last week, the big news was about a 51 year old actor marrying a 16 year old rising singer whose father was 41. The father said something like "it's great he is behind her". Now really, Britney Spears can get married for one night in Las Vegas and divorced the next day. And the divorce rate? Especially in the Bible Belt? Jesus did condemn divorce but said nothing about gays. Who is ruining marriage as you know it? Straights. Shinjukuboy (full disclosure: gay)

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Im curious. Im religious. We are made in the image of God, and sin started with Adam, we are all fallen. God is the judge and God has the power of mercy. Through Jesus our sins are redeemed, and being a Christian we want to be like Jesus. This talk still doesnt allow for us as individuals to be the judge. And I would tend to agree with the talk that it is those who would uphold matrimony as those between two people of the opposite sex is being brought down by the very same people. The first command and continued command throughtout the Bible from God is to multiply. So my question would ask those of the gay community about how you believe a community that is for gay marriage will affect the straight marriage; would you suggest that one partner be at home to be rusuban? Would you suggest that a lifestyle needs two pay-packets to survive in todays's society? I believe that is where the gay community may become divided into gender ideals. Enlighten me!

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

New York has finally caught up with Iowa.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

i would not be surprised to see Cuomo drafted by all the Dems disillusioned and deeply disappointed with Hopey McChangey.And I mean they want thim to run in 2012, not in 2016.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Most likely, this will eventually end up in the Supreme Court because ya can't have some states accepting such marriage while other states don't, states reciprocating each other's laws, and the mess of documentations on the federal level differing on different states.

Incidentally, this is the first year when the majority of Americans support gay marriage. While the % of supporting Republicans remained the same, the uptick is attributed to the rise in support among Democrats and Independents.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Wolfpack

These are not straw men at all -

Seems to me they are. Also seems to me you are really afraid.

A law that states that two people of the same sex cannot marry is just as arbitrary as a law that says 18 is the age of consent. A law that says two close relatives cannot be married is arbitrary as well because being related doesn't necessitate that they have offspring that are subject to birth defects (particularly if one is incapable of having children). Therefore, opposition to polygamy must surely be indefensible now. How can anyone who supports gay marriage be opposed to polygamous marriages?

I notice you left pedophilia and beastiality out there. Age of consent is indeed arbitrary. Are there actually laws against close relatives marrying? If there are, you are right, they are arbitrary and oppressive. As long as we are talking about 2 consenting adults, that is. As far as polygamy, it was probably outlawed for religious reasons or because it went against cultural norms, and it does indeed seem arbitrary, but I think it could be argued against on the basis of sexism. It's always one man and many women. There is an unequal power relationship between the sexes. If it commonly went both ways, then it would be arbitrary.

These are all logical reasons ... and defensible mores.

The reasons against gay marriage, of which you've presented none (except preserving the species, haha!), aren't based on logic. They are based on prejudice.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Heh, why is it that radical conservatives feel the need to rant and rave about Incest, Polygamy, Paedophilia and Bestiality on every discussion pertaining to gay marriage?

The only possible answer is they don't actually have a genuine reason to protest, other than their own revulsion at homosexual behaviour.

I can only conclude ,once again I might add, that many of these individuals are latent homosexuals themselves skulking in the closet. One scientific study has shown that people claiming to hate gays actually get turned on when shown gay pornography. In other words, these intolerant and unreasonable people wish to deny others what they secretly yearn!

I don't have a problem with gays, in fact they're hardly the one's causing the most trouble in the world. Get over it for goodness sake!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Now the gaymarriage people have a problem. Some companies in NY (like IBM) offer Domestic Partner benefits, but now that gay marriage is legal, those same companies say that for those benefits to continue, you ahve to be married. Now the gay movement is saying that is unfair, since it is making people who were getting those benefits now have to get married.

Also, if they do get married in NY, and move to a place like TX (that doesn't recognize the marriage), if it comes to a divorce (since the divorce rate for a traditional marriage is high in the US) you will probably see a very difficult child custody situation or property division cases.

Be careful what you ask for, you may just get it. I think that they should have really talked this out, instead of making himself (Cumo) a name for a pending Presidental run.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Stranger_in_a_Strange_Land

The reasons against gay marriage, of which you've presented none (except preserving the species, haha!), aren't based on logic. They are based on prejudice.

Prejudice because I am against gay marriage? No, not at all. Is it prejudiced to be against polygamy, beastiality, pedophilia, or incest? You admit that my points about pedophilia and incest have merit then contradict yourself by saying that I'm illogical. Whether or not religion was responsible for polygamy becoming unlawful I do not really know. However there are plenty of female bisexuals that are part of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender groups that likely view it as a civil rights issue as well. If homosexuals can marry, why can't bisexuals?

You just admit that the reasons used to justify homosexual marriage opens up marriage to further erosion with regard to all other arbitrary exclusions to marriage. If people of the same sex can get married then you now cannot give a reasoned argument against any other conceivable type of marriage. You seem to agree that there isn't reason to oppose incestuous marriage or marriage with a person that is currently considered a minor - under 18 years of age? I think you have a point. Why do you think pedophiles have such a high rate of recidivism? Just as homosexuals are naturally attracted to others of their own sex, is it not just natural for pedophiles to desire children - or 17 and 16 year olds or younger - for intimacy? Any argument you can make against these other types of "marriage" are just as arbitrary as you say the arguments against homosexual marriages are. You wanted the box opened - now you must admit that this is just the beginning of the redefining of marriage.

My argument against gay marriage is based on the fact that there is a short logical jump from opening up traditional marriage to gay marriage and with opening it up to just about any other imaginable type of relationship combination. It is terribly destructive to the stability of society and for the development of a unifying bond between all members of society.

My view now is that we should end government sanctioning of marriage all together. Why should the government be involved at all? Let your church marry you to whomever your church allows you to be married to. Don't make we support your morality with my tax dollars!!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Madverts

Heh, why is it that radical conservatives feel the need to rant and rave about Incest, Polygamy, Paedophilia and Bestiality on every discussion pertaining to gay marriage?

It is simple logic to note that these are other potential types of marriage that are now likely given that traditional marriage is now considered arbitrary and exclusionary. I suppose radical liberals have trouble with logic or simply do not wish to admit that they also support these other types of marriage until they are able to get the government to validate gay marriage first.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Madverts

I can only conclude ,once again I might add, that many of these individuals are latent homosexuals themselves skulking in the closet.

That makes no sense. So does this make you a closet heterosexual? Also why say "get over it?" Why don't you get over incest or bestiality or whatever else you are against...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Virtuoso - I'm sure conservatives will find a way to blame Obama for this, although he has taken pains to avoid the fray.

I think more and more people are noticing that Obama takes great pains to avoid becoming involved in most difficult issues.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Wolfpac: Good points on all posts.

What I find interesting that many of those who are for gay marriage keep saying that those who are religious and oppose it are wrong and bigoted. I have seen some say that it is religious beliefs are old and outdated.

If that is so, then why are they so after the exact same thing that relgion teaches, that is the building of a basic family structure to raise children, baseed on a ceremony to God (whichever one you believe in)?

So they say religioin and its institutions are bad and should be changed. So they fight for the right to be included into the very same structure. Go figure.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@Alphaape

If that is so, then why are they so after the exact same thing that relgion teaches, that is the building of a basic family structure to raise children, baseed on a ceremony to God (whichever one you believe in)?

It's got nothing to do with religion. It's a desire to be recognised as a married couple by the state, just like straight couples are. And as a straight, married Christian, I say good luck to 'em.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

If people love each other and make a commitment to each other surely that should be recognised as a good thing by society. It is natural for people in love to want to be together and to show others this. Even in ancient Rome and Greece homosexuality was seen as a natural act.

It is only after modern religions (based on fairy tales), decided to drag humanity to a low level of intolarence as a mans of control that humans hated and rejected those for same sex relationships.

What is more important, humans can feel freeto show their love without fear or they should hide who they are in fear of discrimination by bigots whose values belong in teh Dark ages?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites