Jump to content


New York State Legalizes Gay Marriage


  • Please log in to reply
42 replies to this topic

Poll: Gay marriage: your thoughts? (23 member(s) have cast votes)

What is your opinion on gay marriage?

  1. I think it should be legal. (15 votes [65.22%])

    Percentage of vote: 65.22%

  2. I think it should remain illegal. (2 votes [8.70%])

    Percentage of vote: 8.70%

  3. I think gay couples should be allowed to legally unite, but it should be distinct from male-female marriage (civil unions, for example). (6 votes [26.09%])

    Percentage of vote: 26.09%

  4. I'm not sure how I feel. (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  5. Other (please explain). (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 timwakefield

timwakefield

    He fixes radios by thinking!

  • Members
  • 14,074 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Boston

Posted 24 June 2011 - 08:42 PM

http://www.nytimes.c...n...amp;_r=1

Quote

ALBANY — Lawmakers voted late Friday to legalize same-sex marriage, making New York the largest state where gay and lesbian couples will be able to wed and giving the national gay-rights movement new momentum from the state where it was born.As the Senate debated the measure, supporters and opponents from around the state packed into two small galleries overlooking the chamber. When the final vote tally was read, the crowd screamed and hollered, began to chant “U.S.A.! U.S.A.!” — and to yell “thank you.” A minute or two later, when Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo entered the chamber, the crowd cheered again, rushing the edge of the galleries and chanting the governor’s name.Senate approval was the final hurdle for the legislation, which was strongly supported by Mr. Cuomo. The Assembly approved changes made by the Senate, after passing an earlier version last week. Mr. Cuomo signed the measure late Friday, and the law will go into effect in 30 days, meaning that same-sex couples could begin marrying in New York by midsummer. “I am very proud of New York and the statement we made to the nation today,” Mr. Cuomo said.The bill’s passage followed a daunting run of defeats in other states where voters barred same-sex marriage by legislative action, constitutional amendment or referendum. Just five states — Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont — permit same-sex marriage. It is also legal in : the District of Columbia.The approval of same-sex marriage represented a reversal of fortune for gay-rights advocates in New York State, who just two years ago suffered a humiliating and unexpected defeat when a same-sex marriage bill was easily defeated in the Senate, which was then controlled by Democrats. This year, with the Senate controlled by Republicans, the odds against passage of same-sex marriage appeared long.But the unexpected victory had an unlikely champion: Mr. Cuomo, a Democrat who pledged last year to support same-sex marriage but whose early months in office were dominated by intense battles with lawmakers and some labor unions over spending cuts.Mr. Cuomo made same-sex marriage one of his top priorities for the year and deployed his top aide to coordinate the efforts of a half-dozen local gay-rights organizations whose feuding and disorganization had in part been blamed for the defeat two years ago. .ARTICLE CONTINUED AT LINK ABOVE”

Maury Wills once told me that there will come a point in my career when everyone in the ballpark will know that I have to steal a base, and I will steal that base. - Dave Roberts

#2 ShakeZuma

ShakeZuma

    A hot and bothered astronaut

  • Members
  • 14,090 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:crashing while I'm jacking off
  • Interests:Basket weaving, gardening, BDSM

Posted 25 June 2011 - 12:45 AM

first we allow people to eat pork, then we're not allowed to beat our slaves, and now this???

View PostAmScray, on 30 August 2010 - 12:41 PM, said:

one cannot possibly ascribe themselves to the larger (D) philosophy without first being a poon

#3 BigDMcGee

BigDMcGee

    Forum Entitlist

  • Members
  • 21,768 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 June 2011 - 01:58 AM

View PostShakeZuma, on Saturday, June 25th, 2011, 3:45 AM, said:

first we allow people to eat pork, then we're not allowed to beat our slaves, and now this???
This country has been going straight into the shitter ever since we passed women's suffrage.
Posted Image
"We are only wise in knowing that we know nothing"
-Socrates

"Dust. Wind. Dude."
-Ted Theodore Logan

#4 brvheart

brvheart

    I'm the best.

  • Members
  • 20,928 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toyko, Japan
  • Interests:Playing in nuclear fallout.
  • Favorite Poker Game:I play 100/200 live with my best friend Jason.

Posted 25 June 2011 - 10:53 AM

There should be a study on the affects gay marriage has on children or a society as a whole... paid for by a group that isn't religious or faggots.IF there is no ill-effect on children (other than outliers) THEN all marriages should be considered a personal issue and there should be no such thing as marriage according to the government.IF there IS ill-effect on children (other than outliers) THEN gay marriage should remain illegal.(I didn't vote in this poll. Because **** TimWakefield... amirite, Scram?*)*just kidding Tim.
CAPITALISM: God's way of determining who is smart and who is poor. - Ron Swanson ---> Video:Ron's Pyramid of Greatness Picture: Poster Size


View PostSuitedAces21, on 20 August 2012 - 11:14 AM, said:

tilt you suck.

View PostEssay21, on 25 February 2013 - 08:32 PM, said:

titly suck a dick bitch

#5 Balloon guy

Balloon guy

    Respect my Raises!!!!!!

  • Members
  • 22,953 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:So Cal
  • Interests:Cigars, Flying, Golf, Bible
  • Favorite Poker Game:Golf

Posted 25 June 2011 - 11:43 AM

Posted Image
I use my cigar smoke as idiot repellent

View Postmrdannyg, on 22 April 2013 - 09:26 AM, said:

Every single person (except Bob) has posted things in this thread that would qualify as a hate crime in any other first-world country in the world.

#6 colonel Feathers

colonel Feathers

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,043 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 June 2011 - 12:25 PM

View PostBigDMcGee, on Saturday, June 25th, 2011, 2:58 AM, said:

This country has been going straight into the shitter ever since we passed women's suffrage.
Is it just a coincidence that our worst prez was elected right after this passed. Altho he was awful good looking.
I dont suffer from delusions

I enjoy them

#7 brvheart

brvheart

    I'm the best.

  • Members
  • 20,928 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toyko, Japan
  • Interests:Playing in nuclear fallout.
  • Favorite Poker Game:I play 100/200 live with my best friend Jason.

Posted 25 June 2011 - 03:00 PM

View Postcolonel Feathers, on Saturday, June 25th, 2011, 3:25 PM, said:

Is it just a coincidence that our worst prez was elected right after this passed. Altho he was awful good looking.
FDR didn't get elected right after, and he wasn't particularly good-looking.
CAPITALISM: God's way of determining who is smart and who is poor. - Ron Swanson ---> Video:Ron's Pyramid of Greatness Picture: Poster Size


View PostSuitedAces21, on 20 August 2012 - 11:14 AM, said:

tilt you suck.

View PostEssay21, on 25 February 2013 - 08:32 PM, said:

titly suck a dick bitch

#8 LongLiveYorke

LongLiveYorke

    Ending the world one proton at a time

  • Members
  • 8,351 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Manhattan
  • Interests:fizziks, teh maths, Raid-o-head, Rod Reynolds

Posted 25 June 2011 - 05:43 PM

View Postbrvheart, on Saturday, June 25th, 2011, 2:53 PM, said:

IF there IS ill-effect on children (other than outliers) THEN gay marriage should remain illegal.
Should poor people not be allowed to get married?

#9 brvheart

brvheart

    I'm the best.

  • Members
  • 20,928 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toyko, Japan
  • Interests:Playing in nuclear fallout.
  • Favorite Poker Game:I play 100/200 live with my best friend Jason.

Posted 25 June 2011 - 06:32 PM

View PostLongLiveYorke, on Saturday, June 25th, 2011, 8:43 PM, said:

Should poor people not be allowed to get married?
I'm saying is that IF a study found that male/female relationships are good for society then the government should encourage that. IF they have no extra benefit, then marriage should be legally dissolved among everyone, regardless of income.
CAPITALISM: God's way of determining who is smart and who is poor. - Ron Swanson ---> Video:Ron's Pyramid of Greatness Picture: Poster Size


View PostSuitedAces21, on 20 August 2012 - 11:14 AM, said:

tilt you suck.

View PostEssay21, on 25 February 2013 - 08:32 PM, said:

titly suck a dick bitch

#10 LimbaughGod

LimbaughGod

    Poker Forum Regular

  • Members
  • 123 posts
  • Favorite Poker Game:5 card draw

Posted 26 June 2011 - 02:48 AM

View Postbrvheart, on Saturday, June 25th, 2011, 11:53 AM, said:

There should be a study on the affects gay marriage has on children or a society as a whole... paid for by a group that isn't religious or faggots.IF there is no ill-effect on children (other than outliers) THEN all marriages should be considered a personal issue and there should be no such thing as marriage according to the government.IF there IS ill-effect on children (other than outliers) THEN gay marriage should remain illegal.
I absolutely agree, though it isn't "politically correct".Back in my youth, when I was on fire for making the world a better place, I brought up the same objection to "negro" people being legally married to whites and asked about the societal effect of this. Of course the liberals accused me of being "racist".And yet here we are. Eminem... white kids wearing their pants around their ankles... mixed kids everywhere...It's really easy to see what happened when we didn't focus on looking at the numbers. And that's the biggest thing, whether the numbers bear out your "equal right". Disgusting homosexuals. Now America is declining.Not just that, but the white race is declining. According to the numbers, the white race will be gone by 2030.Not just that, but what made the US great, Jesus Christ, is also declining. My point is the liberals are going to defame you for your legitimate concern about fags and their effect on society. They did the same about negroes... look how that turned out.

#11 ahosang

ahosang

    Trolling FCP like everyone else...

  • Members
  • 1,282 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Under a bridge - ready to troll
  • Interests:Trolling
  • Favorite Poker Game:Trolling

Posted 26 June 2011 - 05:46 AM

View PostLimbaughGod, on Sunday, June 26th, 2011, 11:48 AM, said:

I absolutely agree, though it isn't "politically correct".Back in my youth, when I was on fire for making the world a better place, I brought up the same objection to "negro" people being legally married to whites and asked about the societal effect of this. Of course the liberals accused me of being "racist".And yet here we are. Eminem... white kids wearing their pants around their ankles... mixed kids everywhere...It's really easy to see what happened when we didn't focus on looking at the numbers. And that's the biggest thing, whether the numbers bear out your "equal right". Disgusting homosexuals. Now America is declining.Not just that, but the white race is declining. According to the numbers, the white race will be gone by 2030.Not just that, but what made the US great, Jesus Christ, is also declining. My point is the liberals are going to defame you for your legitimate concern about fags and their effect on society. They did the same about negroes... look how that turned out.
Even Stormfront doesn't post such clearly incorrect 'facts'. Show the source for this please.
FCP is a trollfest. If ya can't beat 'em, join 'em!!!!

#12 timwakefield

timwakefield

    He fixes radios by thinking!

  • Members
  • 14,074 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Boston

Posted 26 June 2011 - 05:57 AM

View Postbrvheart, on Saturday, June 25th, 2011, 10:32 PM, said:

then marriage should be legally dissolved among everyone, regardless of income.
I have no idea why that is your logical conclusion. Why?
Maury Wills once told me that there will come a point in my career when everyone in the ballpark will know that I have to steal a base, and I will steal that base. - Dave Roberts

#13 Pot Odds RAC

Pot Odds RAC

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 7,053 posts
  • Location:Motown
  • Favorite Poker Game:Live NL TxHE

Posted 26 June 2011 - 06:32 AM

View Postbrvheart, on Saturday, June 25th, 2011, 2:53 PM, said:

...there should be no such thing as marriage according to the government...
This is my view since I don't think we should be studying every stinking social issue to decide if people's individual rights should be made illegal. If you can prove that something IS dangerous, then fine, make it illegal, but don't go trying to prove that everything ISN'T dangerous.

#14 hblask

hblask

    Perpetual slow learner

  • Members
  • 9,860 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Minnesota
  • Interests:Just deal the cards already

Posted 26 June 2011 - 06:48 AM

View Postbrvheart, on Saturday, June 25th, 2011, 8:32 PM, said:

I'm saying is that IF a study found that male/female relationships are good for society then the government should encourage that. IF they have no extra benefit, then marriage should be legally dissolved among everyone, regardless of income.
I agree the govt should have no role in a decision as private as marriage. I disagree that the govt should do a study and use social engineering to achieve politically accepted ends.The gay marriage thing is a good example. If the govt had done a study in the 50s about gay marriage and kids, the result would be a foregone conclusion: clearly this is a bad thing. No other result would've been allowed. Any law based on that would stick around forever.There is no one-size-fits-all answer to either social or economic issues, and certainly no correct-for-all-time answers. But that is the only tool the federal government has.
"Isn't it enough to know that I ruined a pony making a gift for you?" -- J. Coulton


#15 FCP Bob

FCP Bob

    Limit Holdem Dinosaur

  • Root Admin
  • 15,845 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scarberia

Posted 26 June 2011 - 07:08 AM

Marriage is really a contract issue and the government should be involved to the same extent as they are in setting up general contract laws. You make sure that people are competent to enter into a marriage via age restrictions to keep abuse to as little as possible and make sure that people enter into a marriage willingly. Any competent adult can enter into a contract and any competent adult should be allowed to get married.
Bob

info@fullcontactpoker.com

#16 Balloon guy

Balloon guy

    Respect my Raises!!!!!!

  • Members
  • 22,953 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:So Cal
  • Interests:Cigars, Flying, Golf, Bible
  • Favorite Poker Game:Golf

Posted 26 June 2011 - 09:42 AM

View PostFCP Bob, on Sunday, June 26th, 2011, 8:08 AM, said:

Marriage is really a contract issue and the government should be involved to the same extent as they are in setting up general contract laws. You make sure that people are competent to enter into a marriage via age restrictions to keep abuse to as little as possible and make sure that people enter into a marriage willingly. Any competent adult can enter into a contract and any competent adult should be allowed to get married.
Brother and sister?
I use my cigar smoke as idiot repellent

View Postmrdannyg, on 22 April 2013 - 09:26 AM, said:

Every single person (except Bob) has posted things in this thread that would qualify as a hate crime in any other first-world country in the world.

#17 hblask

hblask

    Perpetual slow learner

  • Members
  • 9,860 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Minnesota
  • Interests:Just deal the cards already

Posted 26 June 2011 - 10:12 AM

View PostFCP Bob, on Sunday, June 26th, 2011, 9:08 AM, said:

Marriage is really a contract issue and the government should be involved to the same extent as they are in setting up general contract laws. You make sure that people are competent to enter into a marriage via age restrictions to keep abuse to as little as possible and make sure that people enter into a marriage willingly. Any competent adult can enter into a contract and any competent adult should be allowed to get married.
Yes, this is really the point of marriage law -- a shortcut default family contract. But why should the government say "certain people can enter into this type of contract by default, but other people have to jump through hoops and incur lots of legal expenses"? Why not just say "anyone has access to this contract, just come to the courthouse and sign it."?
"Isn't it enough to know that I ruined a pony making a gift for you?" -- J. Coulton


#18 vbnautilus

vbnautilus

    psychonaut

  • Members
  • 10,288 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:venice beach, ca

Posted 26 June 2011 - 06:41 PM

View Posthblask, on Sunday, June 26th, 2011, 11:12 AM, said:

Yes, this is really the point of marriage law -- a shortcut default family contract. But why should the government say "certain people can enter into this type of contract by default, but other people have to jump through hoops and incur lots of legal expenses"? Why not just say "anyone has access to this contract, just come to the courthouse and sign it."?
Because marriage is not originally a contract between the two people who want to get married. Marriage for most of history has been a contract between the couple-to-be-married and their community, that's why the government is involved to begin with, why you need to have witnesses, etc. The couple is supposed to enter community as a family unit in exchange for the benefits of living in that community. That's why the community would have to approve the union and might have various things they expect the couple to do. Obviously things have changed; the role of a family in public life is not what it used to be. But I think the issue has to be understood in this context. ( I agree with you about what the government should do now.)

#19 Dagata

Dagata

    Poker Forum Regular

  • Members
  • 130 posts
  • Favorite Poker Game:Texas Holdem NL

Posted 27 June 2011 - 01:30 AM

Just because the state makes it legal, doesn't mean that God is going to let them into heaven.So everyone can rest easy knowing that we got Goal Line defense at the pearly gates.

#20 LongLiveYorke

LongLiveYorke

    Ending the world one proton at a time

  • Members
  • 8,351 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Manhattan
  • Interests:fizziks, teh maths, Raid-o-head, Rod Reynolds

Posted 27 June 2011 - 04:28 AM

View PostDagata, on Monday, June 27th, 2011, 5:30 AM, said:

Just because the state makes it legal, doesn't mean that God is going to let them into heaven.So everyone can rest easy knowing that we got Goal Line defense at the pearly gates.
Phew, for a second I thought homos were getting into heaven. Glad we've come up with a religion where we can convince ourselves that people who do icky things will burn forever.(Seriously, though, I love the usage of the term "rest easy" in your above post. You're somehow implying that the desire to punish homosexuals came first, and thankfully we have a god that follows through on that desire. Really messed up stuff).




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users