New York State Senate votes down gay marriage

I have to really disagree; these are people's rights are being voted on! Imagine if your marriage was a political topic, imagine if the acknowledgment and government recognition of your relationship was up to people who didn't even know you! Back in the day interracial marriage was banned as well; I'm sure many people thought that was "good for our country" too- but all it was is plain out discrimination, and that's all this is.

People of all sexual identities have the right and should have the freedom to get married; we've changed the legal parameters for many things in this country to progress human rights and promote diversity, what reason do we have not in this case? How is it good for ANY country to treat a minority group as second class citizens?

and i agree we should not discriminate against gay people, but unlike racism, my anger is not bent towards the people, but the lifestyle itself. the issue of sodomy is a moral issue and more about lust rather than love

I disagree again, ibrake, on many factors. One, I would argue that homosexuality is not a "lifestyle" any more than being straight is a lifestyle. It just is. The "hate the sin not the sinner" type of mentality promotes an idea that all people should be straight, and anyone who deviates outside of that sexual identity is choosing to be sinful. I don't find that to be true- and even if it was, sinfulness should not dictate legislation.

There is no moral question with gay marriage; they are not hurting you or anyone else. They are not expecting you to be gay or imposing any type of ideology or lifestyle on you, they are causing no suffering- they are simply in violation of YOUR idea of right and wrong, making the immorality of homosexuality YOUR opinion. Which you have the right to, but also should not dictate legislation.

Sodomy is about lust rather than love, says who? But more importantly, isn't a lot of sex- including a lot of straight sex- about lust and not love? Straight people have straight sex for lust and not love all the time- if that's what you're against, you should stand against it in all cases, not just homosexual sex. Moreover, who are you to say that two gay men can not fall in love and show that love for each other through the physical act of anal sex? Whether or not something about lust or love does not depend on the act, it depends on the intentions of the people engaged in the act. I also want to point out that straight couples participate in "sodomy" as well, both out of lust and love.

All in all, your personal issues against homosexuality do not translate into denying people their rights as being "good for the country". What is happening is discrimination; separate is not equal, a lesson our country should have learned by now.

sodomy is pure lust there can be no love involved in that. sure they may love each other, like many hetero's do, but once you bring sodomy into it theres no purpose there but to pleasure oneself.

theres no purpose in sodomy, especially in marriage,

as opposed to hetero marriage where the purpose is to concieve a child

gay marriage is pointless because the only reason to get married is to have a child

if gay people wanna have civil unions and adopt thats fine with me but they cant ruin marriage with lust

the only reason we have marriage is because theres too much lust in this world so each man should have his own wife.

there isnt going to be any marriage in heaven :)

" the only reason to get married is to have a child"

And what of love?

I have to refute your ideas of love and sex. I can not have a child through kissing, it is for pure pleasure - is that sinful as well? What about holding hands, cuddling, back massages? Do you really believe all pleasure is sinful; what makes sodomy different from any other non-child bearing act of love or lust?

i agree with Delia, and completely disagree with ibrake. Your parents really must have messed you up ibrake.

Religious marriage may be traditionally focused on the idea of procreation, but secular and civil marriage, the only kind that has ever been debate by the government, is for whatever reason those who want to get married want, except for those who want to abuse the rights that come with it. Which no in love couple ever does.

Just because government-recognized marriage and religious marriage have the same name, doesn't mean it's the same thing. This is a matter of giving all couples, regardless of orientation, the right to full couple benefits, far beyond the few a civil union guarantees. While those against gay marriage may not even realize it, by opposing gay marriage, they are opposing true equality, plain and simple.

I'm confused Ibrak4rappers13. Are you Christian or Jewish?

Either way, he's an asshole.

This is disheartening. I have to disagree with the idea that the only reason people get married is to have a child—it is very possible for people to conceive a child out of wedlock (often accidentally, but sometimes on purpose, too).

What about women who can't have children? Or who simply don't want a family? They still get married to their boyfriends, don't they? Because they love them and they want to be with them and there are several legal issues that are hard to deal with for couples who aren't married, e.g. …

My aunt and uncle were life partners for twenty-something years, until she was diagnosed with terminal cancer. If they didn't get married a year before she died, he wouldn't have any rights to handling her funeral, her possessions, the will, anything at all. He wouldn't even have been able to handle her medical choices. These are the struggles that are occurring right now for gay couples who can't get married—there are so many legal issues that make life unnecessarily more difficult.

A side note: to say that gay people are responsible for the ruinous effect that sodomy would have on marriage is a ludicrous thought, considering countless lustful marriages that occur between a man and a woman.

but i believe homosexuality is wrong, im even willing to compare it to beastiality in its nature, which is illegal in some states

"Just over half of U.S. states explicitly outlaw sex with animals (sometimes under the name "sodomy"). In the 2000s, six U.S. states adopted new legislation against it: Oregon, Maine, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, and Missouri. An anomaly that arose in many U.S. states was that when laws outlawing "sodomy" (generally in the context of male homosexuality) were repealed or struck down by the courts, some people thought sex with animals would no longer be outlawed. But the 2004 conviction of a man in Florida demonstrated that even in states with no specific laws against zoosexual acts, animal cruelty statutes can be applied (e.g. State vs. Mitchell). "

my views towards homosexuality are strictly biblical and i try to apply my judeo christian values to every aspect of my life wether it be personal or political

the bible even compares homosexuality to mudering your mother and father

"that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine"

1 timothy 1:9,10

if my views towards homosexuality were this strong why would my views towards homosexual marriage be any different?

ibrake-

Your comparison to bestiality doesn't make sense; you honestly find no difference between two consenting adults and someone raping a random animal?

Also, you didn't answer my question- you said the point of marriage is children, but what about LOVE?

Your bible quotes don't fit your view; you say that your opinions are based on the bible but there is not enough in the bible about homosexuality to justify your belief. Even your quote doesn't make any particular reference to homosexuals- "sodomites" can refer to any one who practices "sodomy", and sodomy can refer to any sexual act that was looked down upon at the time, including anal sex and ORAL sex- which begs the question, are you against oral sex the same way you are against anal sex?

"but there is not enough in the bible about homosexuality to justify your belief. "

one verse is enough

"sodomites" can refer to any one who practices "sodomy"

youre right i agree hetero's shouldnt have anal sex either

"are you against oral sex the same way you are against anal sex?"

oral sex? im not sure if it specifically says anything about oral and im a virgin so i havent had any experience with that but im asssuming youre going to bring up lesbians?

That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.

Romans 1:26-27

Oral sex is considered part of "sodomy" - but let me ask you this real quick. You seem kind of young, no offense of course, but do you think perhaps it's a little early to make decisions on religion and sexuality?

Meanwhile, one verse is most definitely not enough. There are verses in the old testament that talk about stoning women and beating children. Certainly you don't practice that as well?

well im 21... not sure what my age has to do with it though

yes the old testament was the period of the law but jesus came to fulfill the the law

“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill."

matthew 5:17

and usher in the age of grace

"For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. "
john 1 17

im not the "stone the non-believer" type

"He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her"

"This is a trustworthy saying, and everyone should accept it: “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners”—and I am the worst of them all."

1 Timothy 1:15

who am I to throw stones at people

Never mind, it really doesn't. You're older than I thought anyway, but I guess age doesn't really matter.

Jesus didn't accept every law of the old testament though; hence the stoning story. His fulfillment of the law was not to enforce every strange ritual or horrible punishment or even every sin. And in a modern context, much of the old testament is very archaic, violent and would never be followed in our society.

That's why I can't personally accept old testament references to homosexuality as viable even from a religious perspective, especially a Christian one. I would stress Jesus's word on homosexuality- but he had nothing to say on it. If it is such a sin, surely it would have been addressed, and if Christ's followers were meant to stand against it, surely he would have said so!

It seems to me that the conservative Christians who are against homosexuality are not following Christ's word, but man's interpretation.

but my references have been from the new testament

it doesn't matter which testament your references have been from...it just matters that they have been from religious documentation period. Our nation was built on several very important platforms, one of the most important being separation of church and state. The bible can not dictate legislation period. Your arguments about lust and marriage hold no ground because once again your arguments come from lust and sins from the BIBLE. You are entitled to your own views and I understand that, but even if there is no possible way that we are going to get you to open your mind we are still going to try.

Sorry, it was the other thread where we were talking about Leviticus. They are all blending into one! Apparently my brain needs a break too!

ibrake: do you have any arguments against gays that don't come from the bible?

didn't think so.

@randall

no

well then, sadly for your arguments, they just won't fly in the courts.

we have a separation of church and state, and for very good reason. it sounds like your arguments are more suited for bible study.

i apply them the everything in my life wether it be personal or political

Jesus literally said "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and render unto God what is God's."

So not only is your religious interference with government evil and stupid, it actually goes against a direct commandment of your god.

and bible does say you should obey the countries laws if they dont contradict Gods laws obviously. im not gonna worship any king, or steal if the laws advocate it

So then what's your issue here?

Since the law isn't forcing you to marry gay people, why do you feel the need to force them into obscurity?

My sentiments exactly. I cant believe in that in 2009 were still debating whether or not a group of people deserves the same rights as everyone else. I thought we dealt with this in the 60's?

what if theft was my life choice

Homosexuality is not a choice which makes this all the more painful. By denying rights to a minority group, the NY senators who voted against this bill have made their indelible mark in the history books as bigots. Sexual orientation is already protected under Equal Employment laws and, just recently, hate crime legislation. There is no rational argument against allowing gays and lesbians to marry and enjoy the same rights allocated to married heterosexuals.

i was born a thief, dont judge me, lets legalize theft because i feel like im being discriminated against.

im addicted to stealing i cant help it

ibrake4rappers:

your comparison, though you think you're clever, just doesn't hold water.

our government gives us all rights that extend until they infringe on the rights of someone else. the reason you don't have the right to steal from me is because your theft would infringe on my rights to my property. just like you don't have the right to take my life from me, because I have a right to my own life.

so, your comparison simply doesn't compare. if john and bill get married to each other, they are not infringing on any of your rights; you don't even know who they are.

additionally, since you are not gay yourself, you do not ***know*** that being gay is a choice. it is not a choice, and i know you've heard hundreds of actual gay people and compassionate freethinkers tell you that.

@ibrake... wow aren't you the clever one... comparing something harmless with a crime. your logic sucks.

oh look... ibrake stays silent when he is defeated.