Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto override.

[quote name='Ikohn4ever']ehh I am sure I could name a handful that will take their sweet time[/quote]


I know, I live in one of them. I think Virginia still has sodomy laws on the books.
 
The only thing more disgusting than gay marriage is marriage itself. 50 years from now, they are going to be a lot of "bulls" paying some equivalent of alimony nostalgic for the good ole days.
 
I don't think any of the redneck white trash states will ever follow this. Ya know, the states that are holding everyone else back because of their old fashioned ways and love for JAYSUS!

Good work Vermont! :applause:
I wonder who is next? I really do see NJ getting there soon, and possibly the next state to advance towards to future.
 
[quote name='lilboo']I don't think any of the redneck white trash states will ever follow this. Ya know, the states that are holding everyone else back because of their old fashioned ways and love for JAYSUS!

Good work Vermont! :applause:
I wonder who is next? I really do see NJ getting there soon, and possibly the next state to advance towards to future.[/quote]

If you want the South to support gay marriage, you're going to need positive country music songs about being gay.

Or you need to convince people that FORD is an acronym for "Found On Rigid Dick" instead "Found On Road Dead".

EDIT: If Toby Keith would just out himself, ...
 
I always defer to "fix or repair daily," despite the redundancies built-in.

4 down, 46 to go. Keep 'em comin!

The states, I mean. Stop your dirty, dirty thinkin'.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I always defer to "fix or repair daily," despite the redundancies built-in.

4 down, 46 to go. Keep 'em comin!

The states, I mean. Stop your dirty, dirty thinkin'.[/quote]

If Alan Jackson reworked the lyrics of "Mercury Blues" from "crazy 'bout a Mercury" to "craving for some " and retitle the song to " Blues", the South would fall faster than Sherman could burn Atlanta.

 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']theres already brokeback mountain.[/quote]

BM was so Hollywood and ineffective.

Nope, you need the idea going through somebody's mind repeatedly to brainwash people. Music is so much more effective than a movie.

How many times has somebody watched BM versus hearing any top 40 song on the radio in the past ten years?
 
This is just like how it took some states longer to desegregate than others. Just like desegregation, the south will lag behind.
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']I know, I live in one of them. I think Virginia still has sodomy laws on the books.[/quote]

The Supreme Court through those laws out in 2001. However if they were forced to rule on gay marriage, which I think they will be within 5 years, then all this work will be for nothing and it will be the 1950s all over again.

RI also recognizes gay marriage, but haven't legalized it themselves yet.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']:applause:.....though would be more vigorous applause if they legalized gay marriage in the city rather than just recognizing other state's marriages.[/QUOTE]

I'll take a slight decline in discrimination over the status quo discrimination any day of the week. It's smart of DC to "sit on the fence somewhat," as it were - incremental change is easier to swallow than whole hog change. But, on the other hand, they're basically giving away millions of dollars of tourism dollars to Massachusetts, so it's economically silly.
 
[quote name='Friend of Sonic']For Christ's sake! Next they'll allow blacks to marry.[/quote]

It's a sad and scary world... first miscegenation, now this... I believe the most fitting term would be:"homogenation"?!?! ;)
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I'll take a slight decline in discrimination over the status quo discrimination any day of the week. It's smart of DC to "sit on the fence somewhat," as it were - incremental change is easier to swallow than whole hog change. But, on the other hand, they're basically giving away millions of dollars of tourism dollars to Massachusetts, so it's economically silly.[/QUOTE]

D.C. is in a rather unique situation. If they recognize gay marriage, there will be pressure for Congress to do something about it, since Congress has power over D.C. in ways it does not over states. So it's smart, I think, from that perspective, to wait a little longer, at least politically. Plus, I doubt a majority of District residents support making gay marriage legal, regardless of the proclivities of the council.

As for Vermont, no problem at all with their decision. This is the way these things should be done, not through the nearly unaccountable courts. For those applauding the court decisions in other states such as Iowa, take heed: if this is done through the courts much more so than state legislatures, this issue will remain with us for much, much longer than it will if a democratic process is allowed to unfold.
 
I'm against gay marriage. Marriage has been and should continue to be between 1 man and 1 woman. Not 1 man and 2+ women. Not 1 brother and 1 sister. Not 2 men or 2 women. Not father and daughter. THESE ARE NOT HOLY MATRIMONIES. Additionally, I am against government interference into marriage. They should remove most of the benefits marriages have including the tax cut benefits and give everyone, including the discriminated singles like myself out there, all the same tax cuts, insurance rates, etc.. If people want to make medical/death decisions, visiting rights in jail, inheriting estates, be openly gay together, etc then they can have civil unions or domestic partnerships or some other name to be automatically granted these abilities. Of course there are Wills and waivers that take care of many of these issues. Tell me I'm right. What else are gays fighting for? because I think alternatives can be made or rights/benefits can become open to everyone- gay, single, and married alike.
 
Two questions nobody who makes the arguments tivo does has ever been able to answer, and I challenge you, again, to do so:

1) why is it that granting rights to american citizens is interference, but prohibiting those same citizens said rights is considered noninterventionist? government permission of civil rights = bad, but majority public support for oppression of said rights = noble? How does one wake up in the morning thinking this is logically coherent?

2) what gives you the right to determine semantic ownership of the term "marriage"? show me the biblical/religious origins of the word marriage. find me the etymology of the word marriage that specifies man and woman. maybe then we'll talk. but in the meantime, it's not particularly democratic to claim, implicitly via your argument, that you, and those you support, get to determine who gets to use a word. Better get James Dobson to copyright that word quick, otherwise you've little ground, legal or philosophical, to stand on.
 
[quote name='tivo']Marriage has been and should continue to be between 1 man and 1 woman. [/quote]


Right there is why you, and everything you think, is moronic.

The Catholic Church for hundreds of years had what would be considered today "civil unions". In this country we have this little thing that seperate but equal is NOT legal dumbass!

All marriage is is a legal document, if the church doesn't want to do them, fine, but the states should and need to allow all all adults who want to have said legal document the right to get one.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Two questions nobody who makes the arguments tivo does has ever been able to answer, and I challenge you, again, to do so:

1) why is it that granting rights to american citizens is interference, but prohibiting those same citizens said rights is considered noninterventionist? government permission of civil rights = bad, but majority public support for oppression of said rights = noble? How does one wake up in the morning thinking this is logically coherent?

2) what gives you the right to determine semantic ownership of the term "marriage"? show me the biblical/religious origins of the word marriage. find me the etymology of the word marriage that specifies man and woman. maybe then we'll talk. but in the meantime, it's not particularly democratic to claim, implicitly via your argument, that you, and those you support, get to determine who gets to use a word. Better get James Dobson to copyright that word quick, otherwise you've little ground, legal or philosophical, to stand on.[/quote]

I fully agree with what BeBop wrote on this issue...

1) You have to also satisfy the requirement that the right to be granted is a laudable one. For example, Bernie Madoff and other investment crooks would probably like us to legalize ponzi schemes and other shady deals. Doing so would grant him a right that would make him happy, however, it would not be beneficial for society. Thus, if you look at it from the point of view of someone who believes that homosexual marriages are detrimental to society, then the argument is logically consistent. I personally don't care if homosexuals get married... however, I see the fight for homosexual marriage for what it really is... an attack on the traditional nuclear family and another nail in the coffin of our society being hammered by so called progressives.

2) Definitions of words change and are somewhat arbitrary. However, we use words to describe concepts. If we look throughout history, I'm sure that we would see many more instances of marriage referring to the union b/w a man and a woman that that between two men or two women. We could expand the definition, but then the word would lose some precision... but, at least for me, it's not the word that matters...
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
2) what gives you the right to determine semantic ownership of the term "marriage"? show me the biblical/religious origins of the word marriage. find me the etymology of the word marriage that specifies man and woman. maybe then we'll talk. but in the meantime, it's not particularly democratic to claim, implicitly via your argument, that you, and those you support, get to determine who gets to use a word. Better get James Dobson to copyright that word quick, otherwise you've little ground, legal or philosophical, to stand on.[/QUOTE]

When was the first same-sex marriage? 2001? And why is it identified as "same-sex" or "gay marriage" instead of just "marriage?" Thousands of years of TRADITION imply that marriage is between a man and a woman. but don't feel too bad for homosexuals, they've still got claim to all rainbow images.

Edit: BigT said it better and it looks like he answered your questions myke.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='BigT']homosexuals get married... however, I see the fight for homosexual marriage for what it really is... an attack on the traditional nuclear family and another nail in the coffin of our society being hammered by so called progressives.[/quote

Why is it when I want to get married to my partner I am "attacking the traditional nuclear family" and when you think the state ought to divorce us forcibly, well, that's okay.

I've been with my husband for 12 years, we're raising a kid, and I was a stay at home parent for 7 years.

Meanwhile, Britney Spears can marry someone for less than a week (oops), marry and divorce (oops i did it again), go through rehab, and disqualify herself from every parenting award known to man. "The Bachelor" pimps out marriage as a reality show prize. Newt Gingrich criticizes Vermont, despite having two affairs and two divorces.

Who, exactly, is undermining the traditional nuclear family?
 
Feh.
Regardless of some people and all of their logic to back up being against gay marriage, it's going to happen for everyone eventually..soo..just get over it and maybe worry about problems that concern YOU.

:bouncy:
 
[quote name='lilboo']Regardless of some people and all of their logic to back up being against gay marriage...[/QUOTE]

Or lack thereof.
 
[quote name='BigT']I fully agree with what BeBop wrote on this issue...

1) You have to also satisfy the requirement that the right to be granted is a laudable one. For example, Bernie Madoff and other investment crooks would probably like us to legalize ponzi schemes and other shady deals. Doing so would grant him a right that would make him happy, however, it would not be beneficial for society. Thus, if you look at it from the point of view of someone who believes that homosexual marriages are detrimental to society, then the argument is logically consistent. I personally don't care if homosexuals get married... however, I see the fight for homosexual marriage for what it really is... an attack on the traditional nuclear family and another nail in the coffin of our society being hammered by so called progressives.[/quote]

You're living in candy land if you think that the majority of households, definable as "families," are of the "nuclear" sort in the US currently. Your argument lies on a faulty understanding of demographics, so it's logically flawed. And it values the individual viewpoint of those who are against gay marriage differently; it's weighted, giving some people's opinions more dominion and value than others. Third, the premise of the "attack" on the nuclear family is a strawman wholly without merit, as your claim is based on speculation and a motive you cannot provide a justification for, nor prove - that the "Attack" by progressives on "your way of life" (which is a fabrication of demographic reality, mind you) is more concerned with killing off how you live versus getting rights for themselves and letting you live your life.

Life like people in a free society have.

2) Definitions of words change and are somewhat arbitrary. However, we use words to describe concepts. If we look throughout history, I'm sure that we would see many more instances of marriage referring to the union b/w a man and a woman that that between two men or two women. We could expand the definition, but then the word would lose some precision... but, at least for me, it's not the word that matters...
Click to expand...

Yeah...I figured someone would go there. Given the number of states that voted to prohibit same-sex marriages in 2004 and 2006, the delicious irony of the successful passage of state statutes is that they, through some brilliant wording, managed to not only disallow same-sex marriages, but also the legal recognition of "common-law" marriages. Which is a death blow to the idea of tradition, given the definition of "common-law" (law rooted not in the written code, but in traditional social practice). If the common-law traditional recognition of marriage was rebuked, well, then, I consider that to be, legally, an abandonment of heterosexuals' claim to usage rights for the word marriage.
 
[quote name='blandstalker']Why is it when I want to get married to my partner I am "attacking the traditional nuclear family" and when you think the state ought to divorce us forcibly, well, that's okay.[/QUOTE]

You (and many others) are completely mischaracterizing the issue here, and quite frankly the opposing viewpoint. Nobody (or very few people) is in support of "forcibly" divorcing someone, or forcibly attempting to keep someone from getting married or whatever other religious/whatever ceremony/status they want to pursue. This issue is all about what government recognizes as a certain status, and what government should recognize. You can get married as a gay person quite easily anywhere in the United States and call yourself married. Nobody can legally stop you from doing that. However, the government may not call you married in most states.

So the question really is, should the government recognize gay marriage just as it recognizes traditional marriage? That is a difficult question to answer if, like many Americans, you feel that government promotion of the traditional family through tax benefits and other things that go with that status is a positive. That's why I think this issue should be left to states to decide as to whether or not they want to recognize whatever marriage/union/whatever. I personally have been convinced through argument that the government should not recognize any marriages and get out of that business, but I think each the people of each state should decide what they want to do. Vermont has done this and other states have as well. Let the people, not the courts, decide.
 
May I ask why it's suddenly, coincidentally, after 200+ years of established law and practice, not the government's place to recognize and promote marriage?

Don't you all see how the government, and society, benefits from promoting marriage?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']May I ask why it's suddenly, coincidentally, after 200+ years of established law and practice, not the government's place to recognize and promote marriage?

Don't you all see how the government, and society, benefits from promoting marriage?[/quote]
It's never been the government's place. They do anyway, thus same-gender couples should have that ability as well.

I'm at a loss to your second question. The only societal positive I can see you arguing is the parental advantages for the children. But that's a occurrence that isn't inherent in marriage, and not even possible without external interference in same-gender marriage. Please clarify what societal benefits you are referring to.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
Don't you all see how the government, and society, benefits from promoting marriage?[/QUOTE]

traditional marriage = yes, but what are the benefits of promoting homosexual unions?
 
[quote name='tivo']traditional marriage = yes, but what are the benefits of promoting homosexual unions?[/QUOTE]
What is the disadvantage of promoting homosexual unions?
 
[quote name='tivo']traditional marriage = yes, but what are the benefits of promoting homosexual unions?[/quote]
Monogamous relationships have a tendency to reduce the spread of STD's. I hear AIDS is an issue faced by the homosexual population at rates higher than that of the heterosexual population. Also, stable households have a tendency to be willing to commit to larger purchases like real estate so that can help quite a bit with local economies.

edit: Gay marriage is also really good for the wedding industry. And the Bravo network.
 
Anyone else seeing the Polling Point: Is Gay Marriage Wrong? banner ad that sometimes displays in this thread? The pictures of the two guys is so awkward. It looks like someone is egging on a couple of drunk straight guys saying, "Okay guys, shut up shut up! We're gonna take this picture of you guys staring at each other like you wanna kiss STOP LAUGHING DAMN IT!"
 
[quote name='mykevermin']May I ask why it's suddenly, coincidentally, after 200+ years of established law and practice, not the government's place to recognize and promote marriage?

Don't you all see how the government, and society, benefits from promoting marriage?[/QUOTE]

Was this sarcasm? When you want the government to recognize same-sex marriages, fuck tradition ( :applause: ), but when someone wants the government out of the marriage business entirely, you fall back on tradition?
 
[quote name='Friend of Sonic']Try clicking on page 2. It always shows up for me. If not, I'll take a screenshot tonight. I'll do anything to derail a thread.[/quote]
Just getting the right stuff sale banner and the Brown College banner. I guess brown could be the color of an anus. That's kind of gay.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']May I ask why it's suddenly, coincidentally, after 200+ years of established law and practice, not the government's place to recognize and promote marriage?

Don't you all see how the government, and society, benefits from promoting marriage?[/QUOTE]

To be quite honest, I never really thought about the government's recognition of marriages before the issue came up in this forum. People made very convincing arguments why the government should not be involved in the issue whatsoever. First time for everything, I know! In any case, nothing coincidental about it.

As to your second point, I do see how society benefits from promoting marriage. Kids do better in two-parent families. However, I believe the costs outweigh the benefits to society. For instance, I don't think anyone who is married should get special tax status. That's unfair to those who are single. Similarly, it's unfair for the government to endorse marital status for some people and withhold it from others based on their personal sexual decisions (unfair, not illegal).
 
New York could be next.

Gov. Patterson is expected to introduce legislation tomorrow. Just heard a blurb about it on CNN.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']For instance, I don't think anyone who is married should get special tax status. That's unfair to those who are single.[/QUOTE]

Republicans should frame it as "the ugly tax."

[quote name='dmaul1114']New York could be next.

Gov. Patterson is expected to introduce legislation tomorrow. Just heard a blurb about it on CNN.[/QUOTE]

Has he seen the legislation yet?

[/notfunny]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top