New York State Senate votes down gay marriage

"It looks like the choice is clear. Marriage is between one man and one woman."

How is the choice clear? In fact, you haven't even demonstrated what "choice" we're making.

"I am all for people to be happy."

This totally contradicts...

"I do not understand why some people feel that they will not be happy until they are able to interfere with marriage and think they can change what it is. I am married. I have a family. It is entirely 100% impossible for two people of the same gender to have the same relationship that my wife and I have. Only a a man and a woman can be married. two people of the same gender can "act" like they are married, or "pretend" that they are married, but they can never "be" married. I am all for Civil Unions that will provide equal rights to all people. I do not believe that Civil Unions should be exclusive to same gender couples."

If you want people to be happy, why are you are forcing your own opinion on them as if they were children?

They're adults, they don't need advice from someone arguably far less astute than they are.\

"I am tired of listening to the self-righteous gay-marriage argument that insults people that oppose their political agenda and insists that people that there is something "wrong" with people that disagree with them."

It is a testament to the egotism and inferiority of the conservative mind that so much psychological projection goes on here.

People want to live their life how they want and when conservatives oppose that, it makes their opposition self-righteous.

Did you ever consider, just maybe for a single second, that this IS NOT ABOUT YOU? Did you ever consider that maybe you don't have the right to tell people what do? Especially when you're not an expert on anything dealing with this issue.

"There is no such thing as gay-marriage, build that bridge and get over it. Sorry to have to lay it on you like this. This is a fact of life."

There is no such thing as marriage as "fact," literally I cannot believe that you are so unaware that you don't even know what a fact is.

Marriage is a social contract, one that can be redefined at a moment's whim to deal with society's needs. It is no more a "fact" than democracy is a "fact."

That doesn't even make sense. Gravity is 9.8 m/s squared on earth, that's a fact. The identity function, marriage is marriage, is not a fact.

Christ, take a logic course, take a science course, take a history course, take ANYTHING because a high school student has a better understanding of reality than you do.

Erm, I already addressed all these points in the massive thread under fun_size's comment (the one with 28 comments). I really don't feel like rehashing all the same points...

But YOU rehashed it by saying "all of these arguments used to justify gay marriage, including EdJoyProductions' appeal above) could also be used to justify pedophilia, and yet gay marriage proponents can't see through the cognitive dissonance to acknowledge that" in a separate comment. And in much of that post, you have an incomplete understanding of the issues surrounding your own arguments, like the ones related to the mentally ill and developmentally disabled.

That'd be my post, from back on the first page talking about resident crazy Uncle_Charlie's post.

Yes, that would also apply to pedophilia if that was the reasoning being used.

Although typically it's not. Usually the reasoning is predator based, the idea that all or the vast majority of pedophiles are not seeking a legitimate relationship but are in fact exploiting defenseless children who don't know what they're doing.

But we're already having a discussion about morals in that huge responseathon under fun_size, so I won't fracture that discussion by getting too deep into this. Unless there's something else you wanted to bring up.

Like how Obama became President.

Does this extend to pedophiles as well?

No obviously not. Nice deflection though.

Why not?

Because pedophilia is an illegal act. Loving a man instead of a woman or vice versa is not illegal. Do you have some kind of point?

Ahh.. the "homosexuality is on the same level as pedophiles" argument.

And again, to sound like a broken record, it's called consent. A child cannot consent to sexual acts by an adult or even another child. And mind you, not all pedophiles are "homosexual." Pedophiles can prefer a girl or boy because their fetish is in young children, not the gender of the child.

This logic does not work. "Pedophile that likes little boys means he's a homosexual. That means all homosexuals like little boys." Let's apply that same logic to something else. "All grenades are round. Therefore, all round things are grenades."

See..that doesn't make any sense. That's a fallacy of composition.

But, back to the issue of consent. Homosexuals at a certain age can consent to sex (unless it's rape whether homosexual or heterosexual). Homosexual activities is not endangering or hurting someone. And please, don't bring up religious texts because it is not considered as fact.

Gay marriage is currently an illegal act. Clearly legality isn't your top priority with regard to something's prospective legal validity.

Those underage most certainly can—and often do—give their consent.

By the way, the "logical fallacy" you pointed out had nothing to do with anything I've said. Let's not put words in each other's mouths, shall we?

Yes but it is not binding as they are minors and therefore not recognized in the eyes of the law. Again this has NOTHING to do with whether or not people deserve to marry the person they love.

Oh, and I'd like to see your evidence that relationships between older and younger lovers inevitably "hurt" the younger member.

So your argument against pedophilic marriage is based solely on issues of legality?

If minors' consent could be legally recognized, would that change your stance on whether or not pedophiles could marry those currently considered "underage"?

Enough. This is 100% off topic and is completely unrelated with gay marriage.

This is 100% relevant because I'm extracting your chain of logic. It seems as if you are applying some double standards here.

Underage? Clearly define what you mean underage. An 8 year old is completely different from a 16 year old.

"By the way, the "logical fallacy" you pointed out had nothing to do with anything I've said. Let's not put words in each other's mouths, shall we?"

Oh my bad. Well, I'm still going to throw that little fact out there just in case. But morally equating homosexuality with pedophilia is like equating eating meat to cannibalism. It's completely nonsensical.

The whole "where does it end?!" argument has already been debunked because of the legal term called consent.

"Morally equating homosexuality with pedophilia is like equating eating meat to cannibalism. It's completely nonsensical."

What? I thought we're not supposed to be applying our relative ideas of morality when deciding on American laws that affect the rights of others.

"The whole "where does it end?!" argument has already been debunked because of the legal term called consent."

Again, consent is an issue of legality. If you're saying something ought to be illegal because the current legal framework precludes it from being legal, why not apply that to gay marriage?

As you two may be starting to see, I am not comparing pedophilia to homosexuality in any moralistic context. Rather, I am unveiling some fundamental subconscious double standards.

Minors are not capable of making their own decisions. This is why people have legal guardians until they are deemed old enough to care for themselves in the eyes of society. Therefore when an older person has sexual relations with an underage individual it is considered illegal and immoral.

As far as gay marriage goes people should be allowed to marry whom they wish so long as both parties are willing and of age. The 'sanctity' of marriage was destroyed long ago by drive thru weddings in Vegas and day after annulments. 50% of all marriages end in divorce. So why are gay men and women not allowed to experience equality in the eyes of the law?

Hmm. Many mentally disabled people are also unable to make their own decisions. So are many elderly people who suffer from Alzheimer's and dementia. Should these people, too, be unable to marry who they want?

Also, some people are just plain unintelligent, and can't be trusted to make healthy life choices. Should those with low IQ's be barred from marriage as well?

To answer your **silly** questions, calm_insense, NO. They shouldn't be barred.

Okay now back to the topic.... Why are you against gay marriage?

Why shouldn't they be barred? The argument was that minors do not have the mental capacity to give consent, and therefore cannot be in a relationship with an adult. But if people with mental disabilities and mental retardation also do not have the capacity to give consent, why the double standard?

I'm not sure how long it's going to take you (and anglcazn) to realize that, despite getting mad at people for using morality—rather than rationality—to justify their opposition to gay marriage, you yourselves hold your own illogical positions based on your views of proper morality.

For the record, I never said I oppose gay marriage. This is about you and the validity of your argument, not me or my personal beliefs.

The argument is that minors are easily influenced, and thus the law cannot trust their testimony.

Thus we have consent laws, because we can't establish that an adult hasn't used their influence to coerce or otherwise malign the child into silence.

It frequently isn't true, especially when you reach the ages closest to the deadline.

But you don't design laws based on exceptions, that's what selective enforcement is for.

Similarly, people with mental handicaps have to have legal guardians to represent them. Laws aren't established to deal with people who have the -minds- of children, but there's no reason why there couldn't be.

So no, your snarky silliness doesn't even work. Exposing the flaws in established law is pointless unless you're talking to a legislator and applying an unchanging logical standard to morality is equally stupid.

Which is the real flaw you're putting out here, this idea that opponents are using "morality" instead of "rationality."

First off, there is no objective moral standard. It's why this debate is so pointless. People decide what they think is right and wrong based on a combination personal empathy, experience, reasoning and cultural norms.

Pro-gay marriage people come at it with their personal experience, empathy and reasoning.

Anti-gay marriage people use cultural norms.

They're both applying moral standards, it's not as if one side is "moral" and the other isn't.

Saying opponents are using "morality" in their approach is like saying they're using "culture." It's utterly meaningless because it's totally subjective. The definition is agreed upon by consensus, it's not a tangible thing like a rock is.

All you've demonstrated is that law is complicated and doesn't easily conform to human emotions. Wow, big surprise there.

And since you've only attempted to expose the "invalidity" (as if morality was based on deductive reasoning) of a single tangential argument in this discussion, I'd say it's a far cry that we're now completely equivalent to people whose core claim is that "God hates you."

"What? I thought we're not supposed to be applying our relative ideas of morality when deciding on American laws that affect the rights of others."

Hence the comment made towards you. Saying pedophiles should have the same rights as homosexals are equating the two when there is a clear distinction. Children (around 0 - 14 years) cannot give consent because they are legally and psychologically unable to and that they are easily influenced.

"If you're saying something ought to be illegal because the current legal framework precludes it from being legal, why not apply that to gay marriage?"
Why can't we apply it to interracial marriage? Miscegenation laws? Those laws were once made legals and was strictly enforced. The main argument is that the state and nation are taking away marriage rights from a group of people that are deemed deviant. It happened with interracial marriages and it's happening to homosexual marriages.

"I am unveiling some fundamental subconscious double standards."
What double standard? So far from your arguments, I see none. But, feel free to clarify.

"The argument was that minors do not have the mental capacity to give consent, and therefore cannot be in a relationship with an adult. But if people with mental disabilities and mental retardation also do not have the capacity to give consent, why the double standard?"
The reason is because children are easily influenced by an adult who want to exploit for sexual gain. Mentally disabled are allowed to marry depending on the severity of their disability. And like child, mentally disabled are protected by laws that prevent one person from exploiting the young or disabled. In the case of children, pedophiles are prohibited from marrying children. In the case of the mentally ill, people seeking personal gain are prohibited and arrested.

Also, children have not reached psychosexual maturity as one who is an adult and/or disabled. Children exposed to early sexual activities suffer dire consequences such as dissociative identity disorder (worst case scenario). Those that are mentally disabled are at and aware of their psychosexual maturity. They are aware what is going on and what should not be done to them. Hence the reason they are allow to marry. Children, on the other hand, are not because they are at a stage where they want to please the adult.

So, no there is no double standard as you have mentioned.

My point was this:

Folks who oppose gay marriage see gay marriage in the same manner that proponents of gay marriage who oppose pedophilic marriage see pedophilic marriage.

If you support gay marriage and oppose pedophilic marriage, you can't possibly do so objectively unless you have logical arguments to defend this position. I tried to extract concrete logical justifications from randallr01 and anglcazn, and they weren't able to give any solid answers that I couldn't invalidate through extrapolation. This means that their opposition to pedophilic marriage rests on relativistic normative judgments - the same kind for which they criticized opponents of gay marriage for using as the justification for their positions.

My most recent comment was to Saladin. I'll respond to anglcazn's within a few minutes...

They're not philosophers, big surprise that they don't know how to rationally answer you on matters of justifying morality.

What were you trying to prove? That political views aren't transcendental, inassailable axioms of empirical truth? Who thought they were? Most arguments for gay marriage are based on constitutional principles.

Morals ARE relative, arguing for their objectivity is like trying to argue that art is objective.

But their relativity isn't arbitrary. They're based on how we want to treat human beings. Since about 99% of human beings, more or less, share the same empathy and many experiences in common, it isn't impossible or even contradictory to attempt to assert your morals as making more sense.

Why? Because a moral argument (in theory, since most people don't get this far in their understanding) is an attempt to make someone realize something about their experience that they're not taking into consideration.

In the rare occasion that gay marriage proponents use moral arguments, they attempt to elicit feelings of empathy ("How would you feel...") to overcome cultural norms ("Eww, buttsex is gross/God hates gays.")

Moral subjectivity negates, not justifies, all moral opinions. Moral arguments, therefore, are an attempt to form a cultural consensus based on collective experience.

The fact that our opposition doesn't share our opinion doesn't mean they don't share our experience. If they do share our experience, then they're being fools for not considering it in their moral approach.

“Saying pedophiles should have the same rights as homosexals are equating the two when there is a clear distinction. Children cannot give consent because they are legally and psychologically unable to and that they are easily influenced.”

1. I’m pretty sure most guys would make the same decisions at 18 as they would have when they were younger. Most guys have lusted after older women (that is, women of legal age) when they were minors. That doesn’t all suddenly change once these guys turn 18. No guy who had a sexual escapade with an adult female when he was a minor is going to regret it simply by consequence of having reached legal age – that is, not more so than anyone else would harbor such regrets, at any age.

2. All guys are “easily influenced” by attractive women. And gullible, naïve “bimbos” of any age are “easily influenced” as well. These factors are not the product of age.

3. I already covered the issue of legality – just because something is illegal doesn’t mean it must stay that way. Surely proponents of changing the law already understand this.

“Why can't we apply it to interracial marriage? Miscegenation laws? Those laws were once made legals and was strictly enforced. The main argument is that the state and nation are taking away marriage rights from a group of people that are deemed deviant. It happened with interracial marriages and it's happening to homosexual marriages. “

How does this not equally extend to pedophilic marriage?

“The reason is because children are easily influenced by an adult who want to exploit for sexual gain.”

Like I said, so are many adults.

“Mentally disabled are allowed to marry depending on the severity of their disability.”

Are you saying the profoundly disabled are outright banned from marriage? Either way, are you really insinuating that someone who is *profoundly* mentally disabled has the same prudence as a mentally healthy 15-year-old?

“And like child, mentally disabled are protected by laws that prevent one person from exploiting the young or disabled.”

Just as you allow the possibility that not everyone who wants to marry someone who is mentally disabled is trying to exploit that disabled individual, so too is not every adult who wants to have a relationship with a minor trying to exploit the minor.

“In the case of children, pedophiles are prohibited from marrying children. In the case of the mentally ill, people seeking personal gain are prohibited and arrested.”

As above, you acknowledge that only those seeking personal gain are prohibited from entering relationships with the mentally ill, but *every* adult seeking to enter a relationship with a minor is prohibited, regardless of whether or not there is selfish intent.

“Also, children have not reached psychosexual maturity as one who is an adult and/or disabled.
Children exposed to early sexual activities suffer dire consequences such as dissociative identity disorder.”

Are you saying that for the overwhelming majority of human history, children have for thousands of years been suffering these dire consequences? Basically, everyone up until the Industrial Revolution in the West, and even later outside of the West, was profoundly screwed up?

“Those that are mentally disabled are at and aware of their psychosexual maturity. They are aware what is going on and what should not be done to them.”

I have met quite a few mentally disabled people, and I really doubt that they are undisputedly more “aware of what is going on and what should not be done to them” than your average 14-year-old.

“Hence the reason they are allow to marry. Children, on the other hand, are not because they are at a stage where they want to please the adult.”

Wanting to please a partner has nothing to do with age. This may sound unbelievable to you, but most young males, if given the chance to do “anything” with an older woman, would do so out of purely selfish interests, not because they want to “please” anyone.

“Most arguments for gay marriage are based on constitutional principles.”

My point was to juxtapose this with a cause whose legitimacy similarly rests on a claim of appeal to constitution principles - one that most proponents of gay marriage oppose.

“Morals ARE relative, arguing for their objectivity is like trying to argue that art is objective.”

I wasn’t arguing for objective morality. I was arguing for amorality, in tandem with the popular criticism of Republicans and Christians for using “morality” to justify their opposition to gay marriage.

“But their relativity isn't arbitrary. They're based on how we want to treat human beings. Since about 99% of human beings, more or less, share the same empathy and many experiences in common, it isn't impossible or even contradictory to attempt to assert your morals as making more sense.”

Likewise, my point was to distinguish this argument’s applicability toward gay marriage from this argument’s applicability toward another cause that proponents of gay marriage do not support.

“In the rare occasion that gay marriage proponents use moral arguments, they attempt to elicit feelings of empathy ("How would you feel...") to overcome cultural norms ("Eww, buttsex is gross/God hates gays.")”

Same point.

More generally:

So basically, you're saying that proponents and opponents of gay marriage both use moral arguments, but that gay marriage proponents' moral arguments ought to be considered more valid because there is empathetic consensus? What if the consensus, and it generally is, is that gay marriage is wrong?

"I was arguing for amorality, in tandem with the popular criticism of Republicans and Christians for using “morality” to justify their opposition to gay marriage."

But amorality is neither possible nor necessary.

The law is not and cannot be jus sttraight rational, because rationality only ever can deal with matters oj objective truth. There would be no basis, an no reason, to have laws at all.

Morals, by definiton, are hardwired into all human experiences and decisions because our brains are literally wired that way.

Furthermore, I don't think the criticism has ever been that Reps/Christians were using "morals." It was that their brand of morality treated citizens like shit for a sexual act that wasn't harming anyone and that its basis was on obsucre religious bullshit which doesn't belong as an authority on state matters to begin with.

But that's tangential.

"So basically, you're saying that proponents and opponents of gay marriage both use moral arguments, but that gay marriage proponents' moral arguments ought to be considered more valid because there is empathetic consensus? What if the consensus, and it generally is, is that gay marriage is wrong?"

No, I'm arguing that most gay marriage opponents don't actually feel the way they claim they do.

If they had to sit as the judge, evaluate what was actually going on in these relationships and then decide what to do, I don't think they'd have the stomach to tell them they could not get married.

For instance, I've met conservative people who fervently hated gays until their best friend came out of the closet to them. Then a massive change in opinion occurs, because the issue is no klonger abstract, their empathy comes into the equation.

Not all pillars of moral decision are equal and of them all, cultural norms are the worst. So a movement that's based solely on "this is how we've always done things" just doesn't hold ground even in a subjective arena like morality when in the face of all these other issues.

In that sense, they're not more valid because the reasoning is all faulty. But they're better encompassing how we all -actually- feel.

And clearly the consensus used to be that gay marriage was wrong, we're trying to form a new one.

Don't get me wrong, morality by consensus is by no means a rational thing. That's just how we do things.

"Are you saying the profoundly disabled are outright banned from marriage? "

BTW, yes. In most cases, people with developmental disabilities undergo a sexual consent test. If their disabilities severely effect their understanding of sexuality, relationships, etc, they are not only "banned" from marriage but pretty much all sexual activity with other people.

Thanks for explaining what marriage is to you.

Yet those who aren't single-minded should be able to join as one as well.

Why are we still debating this? You all make me sick.

Senator Savino is talking about love and commitment, and your first words are "marriage is a union of penis and vagina?" How inspirational! Yes, you sure do understand the true meaning of marriage!
One correction, though: The Star of David has nothing to do with male and female. The two triangles are two iterations of the Greek letter delta. That's because the spelling of "David" in Hebrew is dalet-waw-dalet (which is equivalent to two deltas separated by a vowel). This was the symbol on King David's shield. It represents defense and combat, it speaks to the massive Hellenic influence in Palestine at the time of David--but it says nothing about sex or gender.

"Marriage is a Union of a penis and a vagina."

Wow, I get married pretty often then.

"Marriage is a communion a joining of two souls, where a man and woman become one, as husband and wife. "

Wait, didn't you just say that it was a union of penis and vagina? Which is it?

"Tis is a truth from every Walk of Life: Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, and even Atheist. A marriage is a life bond between a man and a woman, this is the Truth."

No, it's not. First off, marriage standards are cultural, not religious. It's why Christian marriage is 180 degree turnaround from what it used to be. It's now done for love, it used to be done for property.

I think you need to look up "truth" in the dictionary. Because it's not "what most people are used to doing."

I heard this false definition of marriage before. How could marriage have been done for "property", when historically, most people getting married did not have any property? The truth is that marriage consists of one man and one woman. This is the truth.

Herp derp, an argument for ignorance doesn't work guy. Just because you don't know doesn't mean it's not true. Open up a history book, turn to any period from the middle ages to Victorian age, then get back to me.

When people got married, they often had not even met each other more than once prior to that meeting. The father was often paid a dowry and the purpose was to secure who was going to carry on his property when he died.

This only really stopped in the U.S. in the early 20th century during the "Free Love" movement, in which people really started advocating for marriage for the purpose of love only.

And between a man and a woman, true? You do realize that is literally a nonsensical statement right? Truth implies fact, something demonstrable about reality that can be verified by anyone.

Saying that's truth is like saying "democracy is truth" or "purple is truth."

A cultural value cannot be truth anymore than your favorite flavor of ice cream can be truth.

It's not the minority that dictates the position on homosexuality, it's the mentality. I have friends of many cultures and minority groups- black, hispanic, indian... and within my age range, they have no problem with gay marriage. It’s not fair to make a judgment call on demographics; it's a generational gap, and I don’t think we’ll have to wait quite as long as you think; my generation is already of voting age and the ones behind mine will be pretty soon. Discrimination is taught, passed down by family members and friends; it needs to be fought against with real education and experience. We are in an age where information is literally at our fingertips and collective mentalities are becoming more diverse and accepting.

Your friends are not representative of their entire demographic groups.

Positive reception toward homosexuality simply isn't a universal thing. It's generally limited to a uniquely Western ideological tradition of progressivism.

Minorities in general have no cultural frameworks to support homosexuality. Asian-Americans tend to be conservative. Arab Americans of course have religious reasons to oppose gay marriage. Hispanic Americans, who tend to be Catholic, also have religious reasons to oppose gay marriage. African-Americans who are either Christian or Muslim also have religious reasons to oppose gay marriage, and even the secular ones have very little cultural impetus to approve of homosexuality. "Faggot" is an openly accepted and widely used insult in the hip hop subculture; certainly more so than in any "redneck" country song.

I am predicting a worldwide trend towards conservatism. You already see it happening in the US with the rise of the radical right and Obama's decreasing approval ratings. China is already very conservative, but as China gains more international clout, and becomes an internationally recognized cultural sphere, this will have significant social implications. In Europe, it will be marked by a continued lack of faith in the European Union, as well as all that it stands for (liberalism, in general).

Perhaps after this surge of conservatism wreaks international havoc, there will once more be a worldwide surge of liberalism, and gay marriage will finally be legalized throughout the US.

@ calm inscense...

BWAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA...

no seriously, that's funny. that's why conservatives did so well in the last election right?

right?

oh, wait. they didn't.

@ Nephwrack:

Jesus, stupidity knows no boundaries.

1. Obama won 52.9% of the vote. That's not exactly an overwhelming landslide.

2. Election Day was over a YEAR ago. Bush had record-high approval ratings after 9/11. As an Obama supporter, you ought to know this simple fact: Things change.

3. RCP reports Obama's current approval rating at 50.1%. A full 44% of the population does NOT support him. This gap has been narrowing, with Gallup recording a record-low approval rating of 48% just a few days ago.

Guess how Congress fairs? RCP reports approval ratings of Democrats at 44.8%, and Republicans at 44.4%.

If you think conservatives are just an irrelevant fringe, you're exactly the kind of take-it-for-granted liberal I was talking about in my original post.

Finally, we're discussing this on an article detailing how New York - not some redneck country in the South, but NEW FREAKIN' YORK - just voted down gay marriage. So did Maine - again, a "progressive" New England state. So did the "bastion of American progressivism", California, and on the SAME FRIGGIN' DAY that Obama won.

Get a clue. Your blindness will be the end of you (and by "you", I mean American liberals).

This is coming from someone who more-often-than-not identifies himself as a liberal.

calm- I never said my friends represent any demographic, but neither do your statistics support your prediction of conservatives taking over. There is an ebb and flow in politics; sometimes the liberal view is more popular, sometimes the conservative view is.

The issue of gay marriage, in my opinion, is brought back to two main factors: Religious outlook and general societal acceptance.

In the case of religion, Americans are actually getting less religious in terms of organized, dogmatic and particularly Christian religion (http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=7041036&page=1). We are seeing more churches open their doors to homosexual members and even make gay people clergy men. The number of non-religious Americans continues to grow as well.

Then their is social acceptance- while obviously we're not at the point of complete acceptance, homosexuals have been gradually more mainstreamed into our society in music, television, movies, activism, etc. This trend will definitely continue and as more people are introduced to gay people through these means, they will be less likely to stay strident in their prejudices.

So, with the decline in religious attitudes despite ethnicity and the continued mainstreaming of homosexuals and "gay culture", I see gay marriage becoming legalized sooner than one might think.

thanks for filling in my blanks but thats not what i meant

yet i bet you can't now explain what it is you meant.

Maybe you should not smoke weed and also turn off your CAPS_LOCK. Stoned, ignorant and angry is no way to go through life.

Yeah! You're supposed to be just ignorant and angry!

Weed makes God's church smelly!

Then the reverse should be true as well.

Religious groups have every right to have their say in our Government , in the Local, State, and Federal levels. The Government has absolutely no right whatsoever to interfere with Religion.

No, religious groups cannot have a say in their government if the basis of their advocacy is to put religion into government.

It's called the establishment clause of the first amendment, it's what separates us from countries like Iran.

thats what i was thinking

enjoy it while you can, but we all know that gay marriage will be fully legal everywhere in due time.

your victory is only temporary

I'm pretty sure the traditional hate phrase is "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve". If you're going to be a cliche bigot, at lease use the traditional terminology.

Wasn't original sin Eve's fault? Without that silly bitch, they'd never have been kicked out of Eden.

well stated..

The slippery slope form of argumentation is actually a well-recognized form of argumentative fallacy. So no, not well stated at all.

It was also an argument from common practice, which is a direct logical fallacy.

There's also the factual issue that all cultures DON'T follow this standard and some countries (and states) have already legalized the practice.

There's also the fact that the marriage of definition DOES and HAS changed, in all world cultures, on a fairly frequent basis.

The argument falls apart on so many levels that it's sort of staggering to think about.

But what do you expect? Garbage in, garbage out. An argument based on faulty principles has to use faulty principles to defend itself.

THe DC City Council does not embarrass you? You must not be from Washington D.C. or you prefer incompetent and corrupt Governments. The DC City Council is a joke. Just google search Marion Barry , if you do not believe me.

if you read the post it states that the 'DC's City Council embarrassed all of us by approving gay marriage.' this does not embarrass me at all--as a long time supporter of gay marriage it made me proud, happy, etc. the New York Senate embarrassed me, and itself. What is your point??

i just saw that you are the moderator of "Current Conservatives"-now i understand you.

For who?

for our country