Same-sex marriage approved by the state of New York.

yes, you backed down after making that post, and that was the correct way to go. but i was wrong to say you just started harping on the word analogy, I didn't remember correctly, it was 4 years ago. I still stand behind the posts i made then. if you want to keep harping on it fine.

 

Seriously, grab a dictionary and figure out what an analogy is before you make anymore claims as to what you think I was saying, even after I clarified it (over and over again) in light of your ignorance.

 

Also FYI why bringing up comparing the Jews under Hitler in a discussion about the plight of gays to try to say that is a ridiculous comparison when it is actually a more apt comparison.

The Pink Triangle symbol is a symbol of Gay rights because under Nazi policy gays were also rounded up and exterminated. In the concentration camps gays were forced to wear a pink triangle like the Jews were forced to wear a yellow Star of David and other prisoners were forced to wear other color and shape coded symbols to identify them.

 

that's one of the most hilarious things i've ever read.

 

Why do we have two people upset that the plight for one groups civil rights which are denied by law, and they are being treated unequally is being compared in an analogy to another group who have been denied civil rights by law?

Nobody on this board is saying the struggles are identical. There are similarities. Pointing out those similarities doesn't make one struggle less important or take anything away from that.

You'd think the logical target of resentment would be the govt. policies that have kept both groups from having equal rights and denied both groups civil rights. Instead, it seems to be people who used an analogy which illustrates the similarities.

 

No brother, that day will only come when polygamists and cousins get the right to marry.

j/k but not really

Americans are completely provincial when it comes to marriage. Even gays who think they're progressive.

Marriage is defined in different ways all around the world and has been throughout history. If gay marriage is a Constitutional right and denial of that right is discrimination logical consistency demands that some Muslim dude gets to marry 10 women, some Arab dude gets to marry his first cousin, some African dude gets to marry a some 14 year old girl etc.

It's a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, right? The only problem I have is if gay marriage isnt' about rights at all but the cultural/social footprint of a single minority group in the US. If marrying whoever you like is an unalienable right that the government has no legitimate call in impeding, anyone should be able to marry anyone, unless someone can show harm. Even underaged marriage has existed for thousands of years and still exists in the world without harming its participants. My girlfriends grandparents were Chinese and they were both married at 12-13 and they were happily married for 60 years as the result of a fruitful union that yielded like a hundred descendants. Right now some dude in Alabama is getting ready to marry his 14 year old first cousin. If he can't then I dont want to live in a country that discriminates. Get ready.

Can you imagine the impact of this on the NBA? No more divorces coz you can marry all the b****es you like means no more alimony and no more divorce settlement

 

Whatever contractual agreement consenting adults want to enter in to and call it 'marriage' is fine. They are gong to need lawyer though. There's a lot of history defining the legal relationship of two people but very little about organizing marriages of other types. All the rights of decision making, survivorship, benefits etc. would need to be spelled out... a disoultion process.

It could be done but it probably wouldn't become too common.

 

Maybe so, but the marriage industry is a gonna BOOM in New York! estimates are $300 million a year!

 

I don't know squat about economics but is it possible that over time we could resolve all our debts and balance our budget by legalizing same-sex marriage, pot (and taxing it) and maybe prostitution (and taxing it) nationwide?

 

Now you're talking. Maybe that 666 rep point hellfire has taken complete control.

 

Good one, but I broke that number a while back. I guess I'm just naturally devilish.

 

My friend owns a bakery in NY, they are really expecting their business to pick up. I'm dead serious.

 

If they sell wedding cakes I think you can pretty well bank on them being right.

 

They only sell cupcakes, but they're a niche that is catching on in the wedding industry.

 

Next thing you know the gays will be taking our farm jobs.

 

I hope not, I just can't picture RuPaul out there baling hay.

 

Those things wouldn't balance the budget all by themselves, pot would turn around the budget by about $40 billion, but bringing prostitution dollars into the realm of legal and reportable income would bring a LOT more. Still our deficit this year is over $1 trillion, we will also have to raise taxes and cut defense spending and it wouldn't hurt to make some tweaks to Social Security and Medicare so that they are solvent in the long term.

[/threadjack]

 

I've already suggested relocating my band to New York.

 

For those who still think the Gay community doesn't face discrimination? Some information:


Lawrence v Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003),[1] is a landmark United States Supreme Court case. In the 6-3 ruling, the Court struck down the sodomy law in Texas. The court had previously addressed the same issue in 1986 in Bowers v. Hardwick, where it upheld a challenged Georgia statute, not finding a constitutional protection of sexual privacy.

Lawrence explicitly overruled Bowers, holding that it had viewed the liberty interest too narrowly. The majority held that intimate consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected by substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Lawrence has the effect of invalidating similar laws throughout the United States that purport to criminalize sodomy between consenting same-sex adults acting in private. It also invalidated the application of sodomy laws to heterosexual sex.[2]


Same-sex sexual activity was criminalized until the state's sodomy law (which applied specifically to homosexual conduct only, listing it as a Class C misdemeanor, punishable by a fine not to exceed $500) was declared unconstitutional in 2003 by the U. S. Supreme Court in the landmark case, Lawrence vs. Texas. However, the statute itself (Texas Penal Code § 21.06) has never been removed from the books.

The Texas Health and Safety Code mandates that, "The materials in the education programs intended for persons younger than 18 years of age must ... state that homosexual conduct is not an acceptable lifestyle and is a criminal offense under §21.06 of the Penal Code." (Texas Health and Safety Code § 85.007(b)). This language also has not been modified since Lawrence vs. Texas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Texas


Just a few facts and the tip of the iceburg. Note that Lawrence vs. Texas was in 2003, a mere 8 years ago. Discrimination against the Gay community is still rampant. One need only look at the Texas Legislature, which has allowed discriminatory laws to stay on the books despite being declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. It reminds me of the discrimination against Blacks that I saw in the 1950's and '60's, and how it persisted after the courts ruled against it and laws were passed making it illegal, and still persists today, to a degree. The situation is much improved for Blacks in America, but discrimination against the Gay community remains, and putting that discrimination in the dumpster, where it belongs, is still in "early days." One need only look at some of the comments on this board, and certainly not just in D&D, for examples.

 

MO'Bama doesn't support gay marriage.

not surprising, and we know her husband merely provides lip service to the gay community.