- Home
- Business & Marketing (833)
- Editorials (671)
- Entertainment (2033)
- Fashion (1032)
- Highbrid (189)
- Honeys (2876)
- Humor (948)
- Music (5222)
- Need to Know (2224)
- News (2076)
- Podcasts (4)
- ARCHIVE
Monday, June 27, 2011 | 6:55am
SOUND OFF: Is Gay Marriage an infringement on the sanctity of the Union?
As New York Passes its Same Sex Marriage Law has the slippery slope watered down the traditional marriage covenant?
#GayMarriage #SameSexMarriage
Late Friday night while you were probably ironing your clothes to hit the town, New York Governor, Andrew Cuomo signed into law Same-Sex Marriage. The bill came after much debate, fighting, and head scratching amongst lawmakers. You might remember I posed a very similar “SOUND OFF” almost two years ago when the measure was first introduced in New York. Since then the bill was defeated and reintroduced. After negotiations between Republican members of the Senate and Governor Andrew Cuomo, regarding protections against discrimination lawsuits for religious groups and non-profit organizations, a same-sex marriage bill known as the Marriage Equality Act passed the State Senate by a vote of 33-29 on June 24, 2011.
Under the bill, members of the same sex will be permitted to marry legally and enjoy all the protections given to heterosexual couples, namely health and death benefits that many argue should be allowed federally. But of course the issue here boils down to Church and State, something we all studied very early on in grade school. Even after the passage of the bill, you would be hard pressed to find a church that will marriage a gay couple but many such individuals just want the right to be treated as family…Legally. If you ask why lawmakers would push so hard for such a bill, for a cash-strapped state, the passage of the law is sure to bring much needed tourism revenue to the state from couples around the country seeking to get married. But what does this now presumable slippery slope first started by California mean for the sanctity of traditional marriage? Is it now not as sacred as the covenant described to be between a man and a women in our religious texts? Some would argue that the high incidence of divorce destroyed that covenant generations ago. What do you think? SOUND OFF: Has the passage of Gay Marriage in New York and California infringed or worst yet spoiled the sanctity of the marital unions between heterosexual couples.
FILED IN Editorials, News
I don’t think so… But again I am not gay. I don’t see how someone else doing them is hurting me. Most folks will complain about what it says in their religious establishment. But and again if it is wrong then the people getting married will pay for it. But this is not a Christian country per say. That is why it is a separation between church and state and i think the state makes off better monetarily then if they were not married.
how can giving everyone the right to do something be infringing on anything
The Union’s Declaration of Independence states: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. (Yeah, I Googled it….) Which to me is a crock of shit, because when the document came to be, the writers were slave owners, but I digress.
.
So with that said not allowing “Gay Marriage” to exist is an infrigement on the sanctity of the union…. right.
Society spoiled the sanctity of marriage a loooong time ago! this just adds more slop to the pigsty.
So essentially you’re against it?
Yes. However, I don’t infringe on other people’s rights to exercise their free will. Should they have the same rights as married men and women? Who I’m I to say no? I’m just a person, like they are. Some people get very high and mighty and start trying to legislate other people’s lives, or condemn a lifestyle that they find offensive, when they have plenty of skeletons in their closets…
Since they included religious exemptions, I’m in favor of the law.
.
I don’t think we have a right to sentence a citizen to a lifetime of solitude, just because we might be offended by their choice on who they want to marry.
.
I understand all of the religious objections; but my rights end at your door. I think the average American would be opposed to the United States being run under strict Muslim law. And in the same way, we cannot force citizens to live under Christian rules.
.
Freedom of religion also includes freedom FROM religion.
100% Concur.
Co-sign with one addition…Gay folk should be allowed to experience the horror of marriage just like the rest of us.
TO ME, TO EACH HIS OR HER OWN, WHAT HOMOSEXUALS DO WITH THEMSELVES WILL AND HAS NEVER AFFECTED ME IN ANY WAY, WE LIVE IN A COUNTRY, LIKE I’VE SAID TIME AFTER TIME, OF FALSE DEMOCRACY WERE PEOPLE USE BULLSHIT AS AN EXCUSE TO DO THE IGNORANT SHIT THEY DO, THE CONSTITUTION WAS WRITTEN BY A BUNCH OF HYPOCRITES, AS LONG AS SOME SELF RIGHTEOUS ASSHOLE DOESNT PREACH TO ME ON HOW THEIR LIFESTYLE’S BETTER THAN MINE, THEN WE’RE GOOD, WHEN SINNERS START POINTING THEIR FINGER AND PASSING JUDGEMENT ON OTHER SINNERS, THATS WHEN IT JUMPS OFF AND TIME AFTER TIME, THESE FALSE PREACHERS USE RELIGION AS AN EXCUSE TO CONDEM A PERSON, RACE OR A RELIGION OTHER THAN THEIR OWN, SO, TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS COUNTRIES FALSE DEMOCRACY AND DO AS YOU PLEASE WITH YOUR LIFE.
… Question… What is the difference between homosexuality, and pedophilia?? …. the differnce is social acceptance of homosexuality…. America is not the first soceity to ever exist. In history there were many cutures that viewed pedophilia as a norm. People that are pedophiles say they are “Born That Way”, yet we send them to jail… Why? Because we view it as being wrong. I don’t even have to use a religious text for this discussion… oh, and by the way. Everything has a definition. A duck is defined a certain way… no matter who comes along and tries to change the definition.. so with that, marriage is defined how it is defined… Anything else couldn’t rightfully and truthfully be called the same thing.
A dictionary could help answer your question?
.
Without breaking out the old Merriam-Webster. When people speak of pedophilia a child or, in some cases someone deemed as underage, is involved. When people speak of homosexuality it is implied that two people of the SAME SEX is involved.
.
BIIIIIIIG DIFFERENCE!!!!!!!
.
A male person, who is considered an adult, who has sexual encounters with a female, who is considered underage, would be considered pedophilia, but NOT homosexual. And the same goes for an “adult” female, and a male “child”.
I guess my last message wasn’t clear. There are several points that were misunderstood. My main point is that america as a whole specializes in trying to REDEFINE things ….. Same place that said a man with a certain skin tone was only a ‘fraction’ of man…… Literally …. They couldn’t be counted as a whole person….. And here we go with another redefinition, for what? marriage has it’s on definition….. Oh, and by the way, part of it’s true nature is for it to be more than some social contact…..
Yes, a definition would define what pretense things should be taken. Without a definite definition, people would be open to marry whatever they wanted. Marriage is not only a conscience agreement or entity. It is religous, cultural, LEGAL (more than anything else), social, and a ton of other agreements dependant on the people involved and the powers that be. So a definition or rule or LAW of what marriage is has to be set, so everyone is playing on the same understood and at least somewhat agreeable field.
.
And the 3/5 Compromise that you speak of was for all considered Slaves, and yes there were others than Blacks that were slaves, even though Blacks made up for most of the slave population. It wasn’t so much based on the color of ones skin but the number of slaves that occupied the south. If the South received tax money, electorial votes, and US House representation based on counting slaves and a whole person, then the South would have continually over-dominated the North, even though domination still happened, because there was a SHIT LOAD of slaves in the south.
.
Think about it one slave master, say 25 “free people”, and possibly 100 slaves on every plantation is south of the Mason Dixon. Represenation in the US House of Reprsentatives, which is based on populus, in the southern states would have doubled or tripled if the South got want they wanted and was able to count every person whether they were able to vote or not as one whole person.
.
The real question is why didnt they count white woman as a fraction of a person??? They werent able to vote either and woman are more of the population than men….. maybe they didnt think that far.
I think a better topic would be “How does the Nation feel about same sex couples raising kids?”