Good point. For all the talk of same-sex “families” the fact is same-sex relationships can not produce offspring. These relationships are by definition genocidal. I think Governor Patterson needs to explain to his constituents why the State is concerned about protecting these relationship and not others.
Genocidal? Won’t produce maybe but not genocidal. Gays are here to adopt the overabundance of unloved kids produced by right wing dysfunctionals like you, nazi mfckr.
Imagine everyone was homosexual or like our friend Howie Dune postulated, Adam and Eve where, would the human race continue? No, of course not. Is that not genocidal? Nazi, me? I’m not sure where’s that coming from but your wrong. Right wingers at least love their children enough to have them, eh?
Nice try, Scott but I think you are off on a couple of points.
1. Same sex couples cannot produce offspring – unless one of the couple is a female. There are ways of creating babies that don’t involve men. So far, though, they haven’t found a way to do without the wimmen aspect. And children are highly over-rated and over-graded, while mine should be over-my-knee.
2. These relationships are not really genocidal. To -cide anything, life has to exist first. You may be able to kill an idea, but you don’t face jail time for it. Unless of course the idea is still within the victim’s head.
3. As for protecting relationships, I say BRING THEM ON. I am not in a truly joyous relationship with my different-sex partner and I think everyone deserves the right to be equally miserable.
Most guys fantasize about two-women scenarios anyhow. Well, some at least. Some men do. But not about all women, especially the un-hot ones. But I don’t think women or any men think about two-guy scenarios. AT ALL. Except for the guys who would prefer it and I say LET them have those Wild and Crazy thoughts so we don’t have to be bogged down NOT thinking about them.
Scott – I’m a straight, married woman who elected not to have children. Does that make me gay. Imagine if everyone was gay?? Why. They’re not. Some are gay – some are straight. That’s what makes this world so great. What are you threatened by – or are you just incredibly narrow minded?
Seems to me that IJ just wanted to get something started here.
I don’t care if gays decide to get married. Not my place (or anyone else’s) to tell them they can’t.
What I absolutely can’t stand is that a country that’s on the verge of economic collapse insists on spending billions of dollars fighting something that has ALREADY been ruled unconstitutional. Ca and Fl have spent more money on gay marriage (due to people under the mistaken impression that it’s any of their business) then on any service that it truly needed. Education? Roads? NOPE. Have to fight that gay marriage. GMAMFB.
1. Unless I’m missing something there’s got to be an egg and a sperm and that requires a man and a woman.
2. I think most Americans would understand Genocide as the destruction of a group of people as a result of their own actions or inactions. Homosexual relationships are terminal.
Would someone please try to explain why the State of New York has an interest (other than monetary) in protecting these relationships and not others such as life long friendships where property is commonly owned?
Ok, then, don’t input your narrow opinion. If there is no discussion, do not discuss.
Personally, I don’t have the nerve to tell someone what they can or cannot do based on a word definition (one of teh arguments is the “tradional” definitions of marriage is between a man and a woman), my moral stance, how icky it may make me feel, ect.
There are companies out there now who are smart enough to already offer benefits to same sex partners.
They SHOULD have benefits. They SHOULD be entitled to survivor’s benefits.
Like I said, doesn’t effect me one way or the other, but stop spending my tax dollars trying to stop it. It’s a stupid fight that the right wing can’t win.
Oh come on now, Scott, though I thank you for getting this discussion back into the realm of insurance.
Pre-existing conditions? Are you for real? Just what would those be? Sexually transmitted disease? Or aberrant non-traditional behavior caused by a mental defect?
Seems to me I’ve met more than a few non-aberrant, traditional folks who had contracted herpes or other STD’s through fun living stuff.
And as long as we’re going to consider what’s acceptable from a pre-existing condition, are we hypocites until we move out of our glass houses if we smoke, drive too fast, have a glass of Chianti, think our skin is more acceptably toned, kick dogs, bite old ladies, or do anything else which makes us human?
Do we all have to read from the same part of the bible? What is acceptable? Judge not lest ye be judged, Scott.
Maybe you’re just not ready to come out of the closet and embrace the Real Scott. Though I don’t think that is the case.
Well, folks, here in New York we have a Governor who wasn’t elected, who has increased the number of staff on the Lt. Gov’s office (we don’t have a Lt. Gov.), who went on spending spree, increasing the state budget by 9+%, whose approval numbers are lower than Ill’s Blogo, and his number one issue is……….gay marriage. WOW!
Heaven help New Yorkers who can’t leave New York – yet.
Actually, the “right wing” does win… in fact they win almost every time it comes up for a general vote.
The only way the “right wing” loses on this is when some activist politician decides to ignore the voters and push it through anyway.
The problem, for me anyway, is one of semantics. You want to call it a “civil union” and give them exactly the same legal right, sign me up. You want to call it “marriage” which I consider a religious ceremony/sacriment then I have a problem. At what point when “gay marriages” are legal will religious groups be compelled to recognize those unions and/or perform those ceremonies?
All I’m saying is same-sex couples or ‘families’ are currently NOT considered spouses or families (usually) by Health Insurers. The Insurance Journal obviously thinks the impact of a legislative amendment to the definition of marriage would have an impact on insurers and so do I.
By the way, I have no idea why the Bible keeps coming up here but I’m a Hindu. I just don’t make a big deal about it.
I have said that more then once. Call them all ‘civil unions’. Get the term marriage OUT of the gov’t, since it has been determined to be a religious word.
If someone wants to get married in a church, fine. The license will be for a ‘civil union’ that will be on tax returns, health care forms, etc. Let the people who want to use the term ‘marriage’ find a church that will perform the ceremony. Up to the church itself if it will perform the ceremony. There are churches that refuse to marry a man/woman if they are already living together. But as far as the Gov’t goes, with all the paperwork for taxes, etc? Call it a Civil Union no matter what.
And, no the right wing CAN’T win this one. Discrimination against anyone due to sexual orientation has been deemed illegal and unconstitutional.
Popular vote counts for nothing anymore. Anyone here remember Ca proposition 187? Where was the outrage when THAT was overturned? Anyone here remember the Dem primary? Again, popular vote lost.
Like I said before, spending millions of dollars when this country is already broke is stupid. Put the money we are being forced to spend for people like you to fight this in education. We’re raising a generation of illiterate children, but as long as we stop gays from getting married, all’s right with the world? PLEASE.
If you call it a “civil union” then when opposite sex people don’t get married in a church is that also a “civil union”. Marriage is a civil union — you have to have a marriage license and all that crap. You can’t just go to the church only. And why couldn’t gays get married in a church. It could happen. They should call it traditional and non-traditional marriage.
Even better than calling everything a civil union is getting the government out of the business of recognizing personal relationships altogether. No more legal marriage, no more civil unions. There are quite enough people in this world already, we don’t need to grant special rights to people who decide to live together under the false assumption they will propogate the species. Especially when you combine the growing population with the fact that in America 40% of all children are born out of wedlock. Get rid of it altogether.
What would have happened if Adam was gay?
He and Eve would have been fighting over who got to play with the snake first.
It ain’t natural, I tells ya.
Good point. For all the talk of same-sex “families” the fact is same-sex relationships can not produce offspring. These relationships are by definition genocidal. I think Governor Patterson needs to explain to his constituents why the State is concerned about protecting these relationship and not others.
Genocidal? Won’t produce maybe but not genocidal. Gays are here to adopt the overabundance of unloved kids produced by right wing dysfunctionals like you, nazi mfckr.
Imagine everyone was homosexual or like our friend Howie Dune postulated, Adam and Eve where, would the human race continue? No, of course not. Is that not genocidal? Nazi, me? I’m not sure where’s that coming from but your wrong. Right wingers at least love their children enough to have them, eh?
Nice try, Scott but I think you are off on a couple of points.
1. Same sex couples cannot produce offspring – unless one of the couple is a female. There are ways of creating babies that don’t involve men. So far, though, they haven’t found a way to do without the wimmen aspect. And children are highly over-rated and over-graded, while mine should be over-my-knee.
2. These relationships are not really genocidal. To -cide anything, life has to exist first. You may be able to kill an idea, but you don’t face jail time for it. Unless of course the idea is still within the victim’s head.
3. As for protecting relationships, I say BRING THEM ON. I am not in a truly joyous relationship with my different-sex partner and I think everyone deserves the right to be equally miserable.
Most guys fantasize about two-women scenarios anyhow. Well, some at least. Some men do. But not about all women, especially the un-hot ones. But I don’t think women or any men think about two-guy scenarios. AT ALL. Except for the guys who would prefer it and I say LET them have those Wild and Crazy thoughts so we don’t have to be bogged down NOT thinking about them.
ah, let the gays marry. Why should straight people be the only ones that are miserable?
It must be another slow news day…
Scott – I’m a straight, married woman who elected not to have children. Does that make me gay. Imagine if everyone was gay?? Why. They’re not. Some are gay – some are straight. That’s what makes this world so great. What are you threatened by – or are you just incredibly narrow minded?
Seems to me that IJ just wanted to get something started here.
I don’t care if gays decide to get married. Not my place (or anyone else’s) to tell them they can’t.
What I absolutely can’t stand is that a country that’s on the verge of economic collapse insists on spending billions of dollars fighting something that has ALREADY been ruled unconstitutional. Ca and Fl have spent more money on gay marriage (due to people under the mistaken impression that it’s any of their business) then on any service that it truly needed. Education? Roads? NOPE. Have to fight that gay marriage. GMAMFB.
Don’t like gay marriage? DON’T MARRY ONE.
You posted while I was still typing.
;-)
Seems more like a slow insurance day judging from all the comments made so far (most of them lame).
As a gay person…I could care less for the label of “marriage”…just give me the FEDERAL rights and I will happily take the Domestic Partner.
Federal rights are the real issue…but these are stepping stones. Got to start somewhere.
The lawyers are looking for another revenue stream from “Gay Divorce”.
Until NY passes a no-fault divorce law, they should not even think about this.
Homosexuality is just wrong. End of discussion.
What is the problem with civil unions? Why doesn’t someone just come up with a single word that is descriptive of a union of the same sex?
Marriage can continue to denote a male/female religious and legal bond.
________ can denote a same sex one. In the case of “Pat” there could be one for male/male and one for female/female?
1. Unless I’m missing something there’s got to be an egg and a sperm and that requires a man and a woman.
2. I think most Americans would understand Genocide as the destruction of a group of people as a result of their own actions or inactions. Homosexual relationships are terminal.
Would someone please try to explain why the State of New York has an interest (other than monetary) in protecting these relationships and not others such as life long friendships where property is commonly owned?
“Homosexuality is just wrong. End of discussion.”
Ok, then, don’t input your narrow opinion. If there is no discussion, do not discuss.
Personally, I don’t have the nerve to tell someone what they can or cannot do based on a word definition (one of teh arguments is the “tradional” definitions of marriage is between a man and a woman), my moral stance, how icky it may make me feel, ect.
Discuss ad nauseum.
It has everything to do with insurance. Think Group Health Insurance. Think pre-existing conditions. Got it?
There are companies out there now who are smart enough to already offer benefits to same sex partners.
They SHOULD have benefits. They SHOULD be entitled to survivor’s benefits.
Like I said, doesn’t effect me one way or the other, but stop spending my tax dollars trying to stop it. It’s a stupid fight that the right wing can’t win.
Oh come on now, Scott, though I thank you for getting this discussion back into the realm of insurance.
Pre-existing conditions? Are you for real? Just what would those be? Sexually transmitted disease? Or aberrant non-traditional behavior caused by a mental defect?
Seems to me I’ve met more than a few non-aberrant, traditional folks who had contracted herpes or other STD’s through fun living stuff.
And as long as we’re going to consider what’s acceptable from a pre-existing condition, are we hypocites until we move out of our glass houses if we smoke, drive too fast, have a glass of Chianti, think our skin is more acceptably toned, kick dogs, bite old ladies, or do anything else which makes us human?
Do we all have to read from the same part of the bible? What is acceptable? Judge not lest ye be judged, Scott.
Maybe you’re just not ready to come out of the closet and embrace the Real Scott. Though I don’t think that is the case.
Well, folks, here in New York we have a Governor who wasn’t elected, who has increased the number of staff on the Lt. Gov’s office (we don’t have a Lt. Gov.), who went on spending spree, increasing the state budget by 9+%, whose approval numbers are lower than Ill’s Blogo, and his number one issue is……….gay marriage. WOW!
Heaven help New Yorkers who can’t leave New York – yet.
Actually, the “right wing” does win… in fact they win almost every time it comes up for a general vote.
The only way the “right wing” loses on this is when some activist politician decides to ignore the voters and push it through anyway.
The problem, for me anyway, is one of semantics. You want to call it a “civil union” and give them exactly the same legal right, sign me up. You want to call it “marriage” which I consider a religious ceremony/sacriment then I have a problem. At what point when “gay marriages” are legal will religious groups be compelled to recognize those unions and/or perform those ceremonies?
All I’m saying is same-sex couples or ‘families’ are currently NOT considered spouses or families (usually) by Health Insurers. The Insurance Journal obviously thinks the impact of a legislative amendment to the definition of marriage would have an impact on insurers and so do I.
By the way, I have no idea why the Bible keeps coming up here but I’m a Hindu. I just don’t make a big deal about it.
I have said that more then once. Call them all ‘civil unions’. Get the term marriage OUT of the gov’t, since it has been determined to be a religious word.
If someone wants to get married in a church, fine. The license will be for a ‘civil union’ that will be on tax returns, health care forms, etc. Let the people who want to use the term ‘marriage’ find a church that will perform the ceremony. Up to the church itself if it will perform the ceremony. There are churches that refuse to marry a man/woman if they are already living together. But as far as the Gov’t goes, with all the paperwork for taxes, etc? Call it a Civil Union no matter what.
And, no the right wing CAN’T win this one. Discrimination against anyone due to sexual orientation has been deemed illegal and unconstitutional.
Popular vote counts for nothing anymore. Anyone here remember Ca proposition 187? Where was the outrage when THAT was overturned? Anyone here remember the Dem primary? Again, popular vote lost.
Like I said before, spending millions of dollars when this country is already broke is stupid. Put the money we are being forced to spend for people like you to fight this in education. We’re raising a generation of illiterate children, but as long as we stop gays from getting married, all’s right with the world? PLEASE.
If you call it a “civil union” then when opposite sex people don’t get married in a church is that also a “civil union”. Marriage is a civil union — you have to have a marriage license and all that crap. You can’t just go to the church only. And why couldn’t gays get married in a church. It could happen. They should call it traditional and non-traditional marriage.
Even better than calling everything a civil union is getting the government out of the business of recognizing personal relationships altogether. No more legal marriage, no more civil unions. There are quite enough people in this world already, we don’t need to grant special rights to people who decide to live together under the false assumption they will propogate the species. Especially when you combine the growing population with the fact that in America 40% of all children are born out of wedlock. Get rid of it altogether.
Yes… you would call it a civil union.
A “civil union” is a contract entered into between two people and recognized by the state.
A “marriage” is a religious ceremony to celebrate the civil union and, for those who believe in such things, to grant some special blessing.
Hmmmmmm……wonder why the state calls it a marriage license.
a site that is worth reading. It’s a bit dated but eh, the information is still correct.
http://www.aaanet.org/press/ma_stmt_marriage.htm
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/02/27/MNGSK59NGM1.DTL
and a blog that was worth reading as well.
http://www.robhamm.com/mylife/node/3