[flv:http://media.ny1.com/media/2009/6/1/video/002AD281_090601_195717.flv https://queerty-prodweb.s3.amazonaws.com/2009/06/duanevidbug.jpg 600 320]
Yes, according to Manhattan’s Sen. Thomas Duane (right), who claims he’s got 32 senators locked up, though he’s not yet naming names. In a news conference yesterday, Duane announced, “I’m telling you we have the votes, it’s coming to the floor, it’s passing.” This is big, not just because it means there’s a real possibility of legalizing same-sex marriage in New York (State No. 7?), but because, if true, it would also force Majority Leader Malcolm Smith (below) from making good on one promise (to only bring the issue up for a vote only if there were enough votes to pass it) and breaking another (the one he made to bigot Sen. Ruben Diaz not to let gay marriage come up for a vote, in exchange for Diaz supporting him as majority leader).
As attentive readers already know, Gov. David Paterson introduced his own bill to legalize same-sex marriage and originally called for legislators to vote on it even if they didn’t have the numbers to pass it. Meanwhile, the State Assembly passed its own version of the bill last month, which means we’re just waiting to see whether Senate Democrats like Duane can round up enough Republican supporters to cancel out the “no” votes expected from senators like the Bronx’s Diaz and Brooklyn’s Carl Kruger.
According to Duane, he did just that, and now believes he can get the State Senate to vote on the bill before the legislative session ends this month.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
And that’s a — beautiful, we’d argue — political nightmare for Smith, who sold his civil rights soul to score his top job.
(Video: NY1)
Captain Freedom
In the meantime we should find primary challengers to run against the Democrats who will vote no. HOW DARE THEY CALL THEMSELVES LIBERAL!
In fact, I would vote for a million lgbt-friendly Republicans before I vote for one Harold Ford bluedogobullshitocrat.
George
Just in time for Pride?
If this really happens before June, Paterson should sign the bill at Stonewall during Pride!
Cam
This would be fantastic! I’ve heard that New Jersey is also moving closer to it.
Fitz
It’s a head shaking day when NJ gets civil liberties passed and CA goes further back into the dark age. YIKES. (i know this is about NY, but NJ is next_)
The Gay Numbers
@Fitz: CA is a conservative state with pockets of liberalism. I think people confuse LA and SF with the rest of the state. There are a lot of people who moved to CA from more conservative states who settled in non-LA and non-SF areas. San Diego, for example, has a lot of military people. Other areas, such as Orange County, consistently vote conservative. This is a state that vote Ronald Reagan into office and multiple other Republican governors.
Andrew
@Fitz:
Not really. NJ has a fairly long history of progressive politics. It’s state Supreme Court is a leader. California, despite popular misconception, is pretty damn conservative. Once you get outside LA and the Bay Area, you find yourself in very conservative territory.
Fitz
@The Gay Numbers: maybe geographically, but I wonder about the population #s. I mean.. sure Visallia and Bishop are right wing-nuts, but how many voting people live there? Republican govenators: CA only elects Republican gov’s when there is a dem. state senate and vise versa.
The Gay Numbers
@Fitz: I advocate looking up the history of CA. I did not realize how conservative most of the state was until I lived there for three years. There are quite a bit of midwesterners and southerners who moved there decades ago. They brought with them their conservative values. If you want to see how conservative the state is- check out the maps of where Prop 8 failed and passed. It’s literally a few major pockets of No areas admist a sea of yes areas.
Bitch, please!
Listen gays, they can change all the laws in the books but if people’s perception doesn’t change, then nothing has changed. We will still have bullying, name calling on the streets, beating gays till dead, young gay sucides, and job discrimination where you won’t even know why they did not hire you. It is impossible to police public attitude and resulting activities. And things aren’t changing for the better in that aspect either. It is a myth that the younger generation are more accepting–they are as vicious as their parents. Look at the bullying little Jaheem Herrera had to endure till his tragic end. It is the younger generation who are using the word “gay” in every negative connotation that they can think of! Yeah, it is good we can marry in many states now, but public acceptance is still a long way off.
Alec
@Bitch, please!: Well, this is the quote I find most apt:
–Martin Luther King
TheJohnV
I agree with The Gay Numbers. Those who say California is progressive are perpetuatng a stereotype. I lived in Riverside (about an hour east of LA) for 12 years. Of course I made lots of trips out to WeHo and Palm Springs, but on all those trips back to Riverside, I had to remind myself to “butch it up”
The Gay Numbers
@Alec: Exactly- the false choice is to say choose either the judical, the legislature, the people or any other option. The right answer is all of the above, or, as Malcolm X said “By any means necessary.” I maybe taking his quote out of context, but that meaning modernized should be understood to mean se need to not self- limit ourselves.
Cam
@Bitch, please!: You said “It is a myth that the younger generation are more accepting–they are as vicious as their parents. Look at the bullying little Jaheem Herrera had to endure till his tragic end. ”
_____________________________________________________________
You are using one example of a kid who committed suicide to say that nothing is getting any better? That is ridiculous. James Byrd was dragged behind a truck by racists, is that supposed to say that things in the U.S. are as bad racially for blacks as during the lynching era? I’m sure President Obama would disagree on that score.
Sure, the bullying that that kid went through was bad, but that in no way means that peoples attitudes are not changing.
John
Duane said he was rushing this through because he wants to beat NJ to the punch.
Come on NY!!!!
yeson8won
Why is the redefinition of marriage to accommodate homosexuals characterised as ‘progressive’?
The majority of Americans consider it a woefully backward step.
The only thing it progresses is the steady moral decline of America.
Bruno
@yeson8won:
“Why is the redefinition of marriage to accommodate homosexuals characterised as ‘progressive’?”
Because it is progressive.
“The majority of Americans consider it a woefully backward step.”
No they don’t. The majority of Americans don’t really think about it, but in these cases we’re talking about what people in each state think. And in New York, at least half of the population (and that’s a low-end estimate) are in favor of full marriage equality.
“The only thing it progresses is the steady moral decline of America.”
Well then, bring on the moral decline. Equality for all!
RichardR
@yeson8won: You and what I’d guess to be your selective interpretation of the bible are on the wrong side of this discussion. Moving toward full equality for all Americans is progress. Otherwise, now that’s “decline.”
Bitch, please!
@Cam: I stand corrected with Alec, who pointed out the quote from Martin Luther King, on this one. The laws are the deterrents and they are stopping more hate crimes. My experience in the midwest and the south lets me to believe what I mentioned earlier as being true. As for President Obama–did you know that many Democrats did not go out to vote because Obama was the on the ballot? Let’s not kid ourselves–bigotry is being taught well in America to the children by their parents.
John K.
@yeson8won: Drop dead.
The Gay Numbers
@Bitch, please!: Last years election, including amongst registered Democrats, was one of the highest since 1968
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html
My advice is rather than walk around circling the wagons or with a presecution complex you should make sure your arguments are factually true.
Robert, NYC
@yeson8won:
If you’re implying that marriage equality will further the steady moral decline, then you should look at the divorce rate statistics that have been steadily declining long before marriage equality became a political issue and long before Massachusetts became the first state to legalize it. Look at the soaring birth rate among single mothers. Gays are to blame for that I suppose?
No…the biggest threat to marriage are your straight philanderers, adulterers while chanting the sanctity of marriage mantra,some even father children with other women while married. There are some notables among them, e.g. David Vitter, Henry Hyde, Newt Gingrich, Bill Clinton, Vito Fossella, Eliot Spitzer, Mel Gibson, Rudy Giuliani who committed incest by marrying his first cousin, cheated on her, married again, had two childen with the second wife, cheated on her and married for the third time and proclaimed that marriage is between one man and one woman, ih his case three women. If gays didn’t exist, who would you blame? Prop H8 that you supported is going to be overturned. This is just a minor setback. You need to get it through your thick skull that civil marriage has NOTHING to do with religious marriage or the procreation nonesense. If that were the case, opposite sex couples should also be banned if they choose not to or cannot produce offspring. States own marriage, not religious cults and last time I checked, states issue marriage licenses, not cults. Maybe they should issue their own and leave us to enjoy our right to a civil marriage.
Hexx
@yeson8won: Actually, to be quite frank, it is YOUR side who is trying to “redefine” marriage. The American Anthropological Association stated several years ago that this concept of “one man, one woman” marriages is only about 200 years old. There is, in fact, no set definition or tradition of marriage, and never has been throughout the history of civilization. It has always been a fluid concept undergoing constant change and transformation, depending on political influences of a given time. It used to be that marriage was nothing more than a contract between a father and a prospective son-in-law, so that the father’s family could acquire greater wealth and power. Basically, he’d be selling off his daughter, and her husband would probably engage in numerous extramarital affairs anyway (oftentimes with men, btw. Especially in ancient Greece and Rome. Though they had other practices that I don’t agree with as well.)
Basically, if you support the TRUE tradition of marriage, that means you support the tradition that it is, in fact, a fluid idea subject to change and adaptation, because world history and cultures have never truly synchronized their idea of marriage. And change, and adaptation… THOSE are progressive ideals right there.
schlukitz
I admire each and everyone of you who take the time and trouble to patiently explain to Yeson8won where he is in error on his viewpoints and commentaries on this site. You are all to be commended.
That said, however, it should be noted that the format and the structure of Yeson8won’s position, that he mistakenly calls “debate”, is in fact, one that is based on mis-truths, the bending of fact and outright lies.
He also comes from a judgemental position and says thing that do not invite “debate” but, rather, are actually calculated to incite and inflame people’s feelings as he tries to present himself as a “normal” person who considers himself to be superior to members of the LGBT community.
Yeson8won is not in the least interested in “debate”. Quite the contrary and I submit those of you who are trying so hard to get him to “see the light” are simply wasting your time.
The hard fact is, Yeson8won is NOT one of those people whose heart and mind we will ever win. He’s a troll and we are allowing ourselves to be baited by his bullshit.
As long as we feed him, he’ll keep coming back. People like him live for this kind of crap. It’s all they have in their miserable little lives.
Jim
@schlukitz: Yup. I am done with his empty minded crap.
InExile
@schlukitz: Yes, I agree! Why is Queerty letting such a creep to continue posting here? This site is for LGBT people to talk out issues and communicate not to defend ourselves against right wing homophobic extremists!
There is no talking sense into people like this, their minds have already been made up and they stand united against each and every one of us! So please go find a right wing hatred sight to spew your venom, they will enjoy it just as much as you do! All we want is to live our lives in equality like most Americans already do.
sal(the original)
to all the folks here go on GLAAD website and there is a story about a certain radio program hosted by rob arnie and dawn and you can listen to the hate the two guys spew and GLAAD gives info on how you can show your disgust at the hate ….thankzz….and QUEERTY,hope ya pick up this story
Hexx
@sal(the original): Yyyyeah. I used to listen to Rob, Arnie, and Dawn every morning on my way to school. Then I got really, really tired of the fact that it was ALWAYS the same thing, down to and including some REALLY idiotic, ignorant crap. I haven’t listened to it in years.
…love sacramento at times… and I live in the most conservative county in the state of California (Placer County did, in fact, surpass Orange County if I understand correctly. This was a few years ago). To those who stated earlier that California is in fact a pretty conservative state, you’re quite correct. Where I live was a sea of yellow when the Prop 8 battle was up, and I can’t stand the color yellow anymore because of it. Yes, I have a Pavlovian reaction to the color yellow because of that stupid prop. Bah. There really aren’t that many liberal regions in California; they just have the higher density than the conservative sections.
yeson8won
@Hexx: The American Anthropological Association stated several years ago that this concept of “one man, one woman” marriages is only about 200 years old.
Since when did the APA become the arbiter of the nation’s morals?
And apparently they failed to read Jesus’ definition of marriage as one man one woman in Matthew 19:4 – about 2,000 years ago.
alan brickman
black guys hate gays?….duh..
yeson8won
@InExile: This site is for LGBT people to talk out issues and communicate not to defend ourselves against right wing homophobic extremists!
Nope I’m not a ‘right wing homophobic extremist’!
I represent the views of the majority of Americans on the subject of homosexuality and homosexual marriage.
If you really want to make progress you have to persuade people just like me, and not just agree with your tiny band of like-minded GBLT adherents.
sal(the original)
@Hexx: lol, yellow lol..well thankz 4 your response.it really is sad what they got away with sayin
Alec
@yeson8won: I don’t remember Jesus saying “marriage is one man and one woman. No other form of marriage shall be valid or recognized.”
But, even if he did, so what? Most socieities throughout human history have sanctioned polygamy in one form or another.
Alec
@yeson8won: I represent the views of the majority of Americans on the subject of homosexuality and homosexual marriage.
So you believe it should be illegal to terminate someone because of their sexual orientation, and that gay couples should have the rights and obligations of marriage, but call it something different, like a civil union?
yeson8won
@Alec: That would make some sense.
A mixed couple is simply NOT the same as a same sex couple no matter how hard some people like to delude themselves.
If homosexuals want to come up with their own institution go right ahead.
But why piss off everyone by demanding that marriage be redefined?
Alec
@yeson8won: So you support civil unions? That provide all of the same legal benefits and obligations of marriages, but reserve the term for opposite-sex couples? In other words, we’d be left fighting over a term.
I mean, you claim to have the majority position, and that seems to be it.
Hexx
@yeson8won: It’s not the APA, for one thing. The APA is the American Psychological Association, and they support gay marriage because it supports healthy psychological development of children by creating security, stability, and showing that society actually provides equal treatment. The AAA (American Anthropological Association) studied world history and culture in the matter for far more than 2000 years, looking into ancient Greece, Rome, Egypt, and other cultures that predated the bible and Christianity. [Btw, the book of Matthew was written about 200 years after the death of Christ, and the words were past orally before that time. Who’s to say Christ actually said those words?] They found that in none of those EVEN MORE ancient cultures, which were older than those words, there was no clear definition of what constituted a marriage. Also, anthropologists do take into account all aspects of culture, down to and including the bible. That was only on example they looked at; like I said, they found that there are many different ways to portray marriage. The bible provides ONE, of an INFINITE NUMBER.
Also, you take that bible quote out of context. The whole passage is referring to how even though people can get divorced, God still considers them married. [basically, if you get a divorce and get married again, you’re committing adultery on your first spouse.] It mentions nothing about being gay. It mentions the BEGINNING, yes. But God made people to be changeable and adaptable, did He not? If he didn’t make us that way, we wouldn’t be that way.
That being said, to most who read these forums I am preaching to the choir, and I know that no matter what I say in terms of reasoned argument, you will not heed it or listen. So I’m not going to respond to you again. Thank you for curbing my boredom for the moment.
magelet
@yeson8won: Too bad Jesus’ definition of marriage has NOTHING to do with civil marriage. We live in a democracy, not a Christian theocracy. You can’t deny people their civil rights based on your religios beliefs.
Hexx
@magelet: To clarify this point again, through research and reading I’m reasonably certain you won’t find Jesus actually saying “Marriage is between one man and one woman.” I even took down my bible and dusted it off to check this verse; it talks about divorce, and how if you divorce and re-marry, you are basically a hypocrite. (Btw, Christ’s own words are rife with condemnation of hypocrites. Those who judge, and who do not care for their neighbors and brothers, and who do not open their hearts and minds to take others in and speak to them without judgement… yeah. Christ literally says they will find eternal fire. But he really REALLY seems to dislike hypocrites, so I hope YesOn8Won doesn’t have any skeletons in hi/r sin closet.)
Okay. Really. This time I’m done. Turning off the computer now.
The Gay Numbers
@Alec: And, the irony, of course, is that if you look at the Bible, there is no reference, as I remember, to marriage when it comes to Jesus at all. Indeed, the whole concept of marriage historical began with property rights (if I am remembering my Property Law course correctly). Therefore, it’s bizare to read the crazy guy on the train response about marriage.
yeson8won
@Hexx: The Gospel of Matthew was written about 70 years after Jesus’ Ascension (not 200 years).
Like any definition, Jesus made it very clear what marriage is (one man one woman) . He didn’t need to spell out all the things marriage is NOT!
When you read a dictionary you find it operates with the same logic.
Had Jesus believed homosexual marriage was ok no doubt He would have mentioned it. Ditto incestuous marriage, bestial marriage etc.
If you want to reject the Bible that’s your decision but there’s no need to try and distort the Word of God so disingenuously.
As most of the people who read these forums are homosexuals no doubt they will want to agree with you and reject God’s Word.
The Gay Numbers
@Hexx: You won’t find any reference to it as far as I remember. Also, I am also basing this on a friend who is straight who is living in “sin” with her boyfriend so she pulled out the Bible, and asked her mama to point out where it says she’s living in sin. Supposedly , it does not come up at all out of the mouth of Jesus. The easy teast, if my friend is right, is to ask those who claim its in the Bible to quote the scripture where Jesus says- men must marry women or that gays can not marry.
The Gay Numbers
@yeson8won: Shorters Yeson8: No. There is no such text, but like most Christians, I make shit up when it suits my bigotry.
The Gay Numbers
@yeson8won: The funny thing is you probably think you are a textualist or fundamentalist, but the very fact you can not point out anything that directly corraborates your claim is unconvincing because of something that was written decades after the God you were supposed be following actually was upon the earth. People like you are so bizare. You are quite clearly picking and choosing what you want to believe but then claming its the literal word of GOd (except its not.).
The Gay Numbers
@yeson8won: @yeson8won: You also amusing use the negative to prove the possive. He did not mention “X” therefore he was against X. That’s logic 101- which is why you are a crazy man on the train.
yeson8won
@Hexx: I’m reasonably certain you won’t find Jesus actually saying “Marriage is between one man and one woman.”
Sorry hexx ole chap but you could not be more wrong.
Read Matt 19:4-6
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
KJV
Hinduism preaches basically the same thing:
“In Hindu dharma, marriage is viewed as a sacrament and not a contract. Hindu marriage is a life-long commitment of one wife and one husband, and is the strongest social bond that takes place between a man and a woman.
Grahastha Ashram (the householder stage), the second of the four stages of life begins when a man and a woman marry and start a household. For a Hindu marriage is the only way to continue the family and thereby repay his debt to his/her ancestors.
In Hindu view, marriage is not a concession to human weakness, but a means for spiritual growth. Man and woman are soul mates who, through the institution of marriage, can direct the energy associated with their individual instincts and passion into the progress of their souls.”
yeson8won
@The Gay Numbers: He did not mention “X” therefore he was against X. That’s logic 101- which is why you are a crazy man on the train.
So if you look up “red” in the dictionary and it explains what that means, you might still be confused that red can also be green, blue, yellow etc, if these other options are not specifically ruled out??
Sorry sunshine I’m afraid it’s your logic that is upside down.
But this a common trait among homosexuals. Otherwise you would all be heterosexual.
Gabriel
@yeson8won: “As most of the people who read these forums are homosexuals no doubt they will want to agree with you and reject God’s Word.”
If you’re stupid enough to think the Bible is the direct word of God, that’s your problem. Anyone sensible realizes that the Bible was written by humans who obviously didn’t have the understanding we do about sexuality, etc. that we have today thanks to science. Then again, you probably think the world was created in six days. And bringing Hinduism into it to back up your point, LOL. If you think the Bible is God’s word you must necessarily reject Hinduism as a heathan religion. And I’m guessing you found that quote on some anti-gay marriage website rather than any understanding about Hinduism as a religion.
“Sorry sunshine I’m afraid it’s your logic that is upside down.
But this a common trait among homosexuals. Otherwise you would all be heterosexual.”
For you to think that there is only one type of sexuality is further proof of your ignorance. Sorry but biology, psychology, sociology all point to homosexuality being a natural variation of human sexuality. Homosexuality just is.
Enjoy your hollow victory in California while it lasts. Gay marriage exists in 5 states and thanks to voting trends time simply isn’t on your side.
yeson8won
@Gabriel: Yes I believe the Bible is the WOrd of God. No great surprise that you don’t because you are a homosexual.
I included the Hinduism quote to show that Chrisianity isn’t the only religion that does NOT condone homosexual marriage – no major world religion does.
The quote was from a website that explains Hinduism (http://www.vivaaha.org) nothing to do with gay marriage.
If homosexuality is a ‘natural variation of human sexuality’ then presumably pedophilia, caprology, necrophilia etc are likewise acceptable in your view?
Voting trends indicate increasing opposition to homosexual marriage. 30 states have amended their constitutions to protect against it and Americans vote against it every single chance they get.
Gabriel
@yeson8won: I don’t believe the Bible is the word of God not because I’m gay but because I’m not stupid.
If you knew anything about Hinduism or India you’d know that there were no prohibitions against homosexuality until the British showed up and enacted sodomy laws. So along with the usual trappings of imperialism there are lasting effects of the cultural pollution of outdated Christian thinking. Also, your obsession with marriage equling one man and one woman probalbly explains why you didn’t quote the Q’ran or discuss any of the many cultural groups that have or continue to practice polygamy.
I always find it funny when people like you bring up pedophilia, caprology, necrophilia, etc. in your arguments. Obviously we know where your mind is. But here in the real world intelligent people recognize that homosexuality isn’t pathological and we have science and the social sciences to back us up. All you have is an irrelevant, old book and your own twisted imagination.
As for voting trends, the younger generation is pro-gay marriage by at least 60% to 40% in most polls. These are the people who will be voting on it in the future. Your claim of increasing opposition is wishful thinking. But then your posts show that you have very little grasp of reality in general.
timncguy
@yeson8won: Homosexuality is a sexual orientation. Pedophilia, caprology and necrophilia are NOT sexual orientations. So, they have no place in this discussion as they are not in any way comparable to a sexual orientation.
Secondly, quoting your version of biblical interpretations also has no place in this discussion as religion has no place in a discussion of a civil matter.
If you can’t come up with any reasons for opposing marriage equality that aren’t based on religious dogma, then you have no place in this discussion. Catholic dogma does not allow for marriage of a previous divorced individual. But, that doesn’t stop those individuals from having a CIVIL marriage. So, you see we don’t base our marriage laws on religious teachings. If we did, then atheists couldn’t get married and Elvis impersonators couldn’t officiate for the state at weddings.
As you know, when a religious leader performs a marriage ceremony they state quite clearly “by the power vested in me by the STATE”. They don’t say anything about the power vested in them by their God.
Captain Freedom
@John K.: I second that. Yeson8… have you ever considered suicide?
Denise Roche
Take religion out of the discussion…
Rights and responsibilities in the law are explicitly given to MARRIED people. That’s why MARRIAGE must be made available to all.
Ethan
@yeson8won:
Jesus didn’t say anything about gay marriage but did say plenty about divorce… but American society doesn’t seem so hung up on that.
strumpetwindsock
@yeson8won:
Jesus in the Gospel may have mentioned people were made male and female, but he didn’t specify who may and may not pair with whom -the word “wife” notwithstanding.
There is nothing in the bible about the marriage ceremony. There are plenty of rules about how to treat your partner, and even divorce, but nothing specifying who may get married, and how to do it. No ceremony, no requirement of having it done by clergy, nothing even saying that it has to be between two people (because of course many families back then had more than two parents).
Marriage was not made a religious sacrament until much later, and it was only in the 1560s that the Catholics required that a clergy and witnesses be present.
As well, some protestant sects oppose the notion of religious marriage because it is NOT in the bible. When Oliver Cromwell and the Puritans ran England in the 1650s they outlawed church marriage – only non-religious secular ceremonies were recognized – this in a theocratic state.
But the bottom line is – marriage is a secular institution. A magistrate has power to seal one and break one, despite what any priest says, and even the church recognizes secular marriages, so how can you say it is religious at all?
schlukitz
@strumpetwindsock:
Strumpet, you are a paragon of knowledge and sagacity. Pity, that every fact you have just presented him with, will either fly over yeson8won’s head, or just be totally ignored when he replies to you. And…he will!!!
“so how can you say it is religious at all?”
Because people who “use” the bible to back up there preposterous
platforms and claims, can interpret it any way they wish. They know what God “meant” even if he didn’t state it exactly that way or make himself more explicit in his meaning.
The spiel is ALWAYS the same. “I know my bible. Apparently, you don’t!” And people who must resort to quoting the bible, obviously have weak,lam arguments that cannot stand up to the facts or weather scientic examination.
That’s why arguing with the bible-thumping Christers is a no-win situation for the non-Christers.
Dragging God into any discussion, is a Godwin’s law play. It’s their trump card that effectively shuts down all further logical debate, since the bible itself is not logical.
So, the bottom line is, why bother jerking yourself off arguing with them, if their rules of the game do not allow you to cum, unless it is for procreational purposes? ;P
QICM
@yeson8won: Yes I believe the Bible is the WOrd of God.
Then we have nothing to discuss, and I will reject out of hand anything you opine with respect to biology. I mean, if you believe the Bible is inerrant, you think the universe is 6,000 years old. There’s no debating someone with your positions. To speak of gays rejecting logic when you deny carbon dating is futile.
There’s no hope of having a rational conversation with someone who cannot disregard their irrational beliefs. It is truly that simple.
CHIP
Duanne does not have the votes for passing in the Senate. This is where it currently stands:
http://www.capitalnews9.com/content/headlines/473652/capital-tonight-poll–senate-split-over-gay-marriage/
I would recommend people contact those that have yet to make a decision. For example, contact my State Senator who will not make his opinion public. Senator Hannon, a Republican from Long Island, is one of the votes needed. Contact him by email or phone to let him know you support marriage equality! http://www.kemphannon.com/article.php?article=62
The celebrities have tried to sway the “no” voters. It didn’t work. The undecides or non-committed are the only chance we have of passing marriage equality this year!
The Gay Numbers
@CHIP: Uhm- all that says is that a lot of people are not willing to go public. But, how is that different from what he says- that many people are not willing to go public but he has the votes.
strumpetwindsock
@schlukitz:
Yeah, I know.
Believe it or not I actually haven’t paid him any attention until now. Let’s just say it has been a slow night.
And besides, I’ve had a few chats with people who don’t really want to hear anything that isn’t rattling around in their own skulls.
I don’t really care what he has to say; I’m actually talking over his head to the galleries.
But you’re right. Don’t feed the trolls.
Cam
Let them vote. I want the names of the Dem’s who vote against it so I can donate money to their primary opponants in the next election.
terriswife2008
Who are hurting? Love is love.
Robert, NYC
@yeson8won:
Your biblical reference on another post, e.g.
Matthew 19:4….And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female
All written by men and solely about procreation, not marriage. Where in the bible is the word marriage or married mentioned? You religious cultists interpret it to be marriage but many other interpretations would construe that it was merely for the purpose of procreation. Before marriage as we know it ever existed, procreation did not require “marriage”. If you’re using the procreation mantra to justify denying same-sex couples from marrying based on dubious biblical references, then by the same token you must and should support a ban on opposite sex couples who choose not to or cannot procreate, you can’t have it both ways.
Matthew 19:5 …For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
Again, written by men! Where is the proof that Jesus Christ said it. Just exactly where in the bible does it explicity state that a marriage ceremony was performed and by whom?
The real threat to marriage are straights who philander, adulterers, some of whom father children while married and prostitutes as well as their pimps who control them. Address that you moron before you start judging us. The divorce rate was soaring long before marriage equality was a concept. If gays didn’t exist, who else would you blame or use as a scapegoat everytime something goes wrong. You’re an idiot.
Its no use trying to convince you, you’re a fraud and don’t want to be convinced. The proof is in your mission to seek out and select gay blogsites and agitate. Another reason why you come here is that deep down, you and your kind know you’re losing the cultural war. Same-sex marriage is inevitable whether you like it or not, so get over it. Seven countries and six states in the U.S., and growing. Keep your fucking religious beliefs in your home where it belongs, not in politics.
How about if the entire gay population banded together to support a ballot initiative to ban religious marriages? The secular state owns marriage when it issues marriage licenses, not religious cults. How about another initiative to revoke tax exempt status of all religious cults that meddle in the political process? They pay no taxes so they should shut the fuck up. Maybe we should pursue it to give the religious ninnnies like you a dose of your own hate medicine.
Robert, NYC
@timncguy:
Tim, exactly. The problem with these religious idiots is that they think religion owns marriage. It does NOT and if it did, why does it not issue marriage licenses? I’m all for that, then if they want federal benefits, then they’ll have to have a civil marriage.
Further, he seems to think that incestuous marriages don’t exist. They do….Rudy Giuliani married his first cousin (blood relative), cheated on her then remarried twice more, committing adultery in between with a couple of kids thrown in the mix. Nice family values and such a classic example of the sanctity of marriage and the one man one woman mantra.
yeson8won
It’s amazing how far you homosexuals will go to try and deny truth, even when it is staring you in the face.
If you choose to reject God and His Gospel that’s your choice. Most homosexuals are forced to do that to appease their consciences about the sad lifestyle choices they have made. Hence the denunciation of the Bible as being ‘written by men’ and not God’s Word
But at least have the intellectual honesty to admit that the Bible condemns homosexuality as a sin, and defines marriage as one man one woman.
We always continue to smile at the hateful intolerant bigoted language of the homosexual activists – the very traits they moan about in other people.
yeson8won
@Robert, NYC: Same-sex marriage is inevitable whether you like it or not, so get over it. Seven countries and six states in the U.S., and growing. Keep your fucking religious beliefs in your home where it belongs, not in politics.
Sorry Robert you are gravely mistaken.
Americans vote against homosexual marriage every chance they get.
30 US states have now amended their Constitutions to protect traditional marriage from violation by homosexuals. Another 15 states have adopted DOMA protection.
Not one single state with homosexual marriage has let We The People vote on the issue. Instead homosexuals used their favourite route – the back door.
The seven countries are mostly small and liberal. There are probably more than 7 countries that allow polygamy, child marriage or even bestial marriage.
Your poster boy Gavin Newsom bragged that homosexual marriage was coming ‘whether you like it or not’. Californians decided they did NOT like it and now he is eating piles of humble pie.
Like many homosexuals you spend too much time chatting with your own ilk, which gives you a distorted view of reality and only serves to sustain your cocoon of delusion.
yeson8won
@Gabriel: If you knew anything about Hinduism or India you’d know that there were no prohibitions against homosexuality until the British showed up and enacted sodomy laws. So along with the usual trappings of imperialism there are lasting effects of the cultural pollution of outdated Christian thinking.
I didn’t mention anything about sodomy, I simply posted the Hindu position on marriage as one man one woman.
Like every other major world religion, Hinduism does NOT condone homosexual marriage.
It’s no coincidence that cultures all over the world have arrived at the same conclusion that homosexual marriage is oxymoronic and completely superfluous.
As to your ignorant rant about imperialism, you seem to overlook the way your ancestors slaughtered North American Indians by the million to impose their own ‘cultural pollution’.
Cam
@yeson8won:
Look, as far as the Bible condemming homosexuality….I’ll accept that it says that. But it also uses the exact same working to condem the mixing of fibers in clothing, and in eating shellfish. What I want to know is this…
Why aren’t all you supposedly good Christians out protesting and trying to pass laws to prevent Wall-Mart and Target from selling clothing with mixed fibers? Why aren’t you picketing your grocery stores and trying to pass laws preventing the sale of Shellfish and Pork Products? If you REALLY live by the Bible, you know that these things are just as strongly condemned, but you all seem to ignore that. Oh wait, thats right, those things don’t give you an excuse to attack and hate other people.
Take your phony Christianism someplace else, I know what you are…and it sure as hell isn’t Christian.
Robert, NYC
@yeson8won:
Get used to it pal, more and more Americans are getting on board and losers like you will be left in the dust as more states and countries follow suit. Fuck your hocus pocus bible. Maybe we’ll start our own ballot intiative to ban religious marriage as well as call for the revocation of tax-exempt status of all religious cults for meddling in the political process. States own marriage and marriage licenses, religious cults don’t. If you want to maintain religious marriage, issue your own fucking licenses and if you want the federal rights that come with marriage, well, I guess you and your kind won’t get any because only civil marriage should provide them. Religious cults have absolutely NO business in civil matters otherwise they should lose their fucking tax-exemption, bunch of parasites.
Robert, NYC
@Cam:
Cam, check out http://www.fallwell.com
That fuckwit you just responded to, deliberately ignores a lot that’s in the old testament.
Also, lets not forget that incest is permitted in the bible. Remember the Adam & Eve fairy tale? Fuckwits like yeson8won believe they were the first parents of the human race….well…doesn’t that beg the question, how did the planet become populated? Answer:…the first parents must have committed incest with their own children and the children among themselves and so on and so forth thereafter. They don’t condemn that though, not do they go after their straight adulterers, philanderers, divorced people, some of whom have had incestuous marriages (Rudy Giuliani’s first marriage was to his first cousin, a blood relative). They’re all nothing but a bunch of fucking hypocrites, yeson8won included.
yeson8won
@Robert, NYC: Sorry pal.
Fewer and fewer Americans are getting on board.
Americans vote against homosexual marriage EVERY SINGLE CHANCE they get.
Your poster boy Gavin Newsom bragged that homosexual marriage was coming ‘whether you like it or not’. Californians decided they did NOT like it and now he is eating piles of humble pie.
Feel free to start any of the ballot initiatives you mentioned. It may help alleviate some of your hatred and anger.
Robert, NYC
@Gabriel:
Gabriel, what that fuckwit yeson8won doesn’t tell you is that Islam, the largest religious cult in the world actually permits polygamy, yet he and his kind don’t go after them or condemn muslims. That shows you what a bunch of spineless hypocrites these fundamentalist christo-fascists are. They can’t even take ownership of their own hypocrisy which means they’re nothing more than a bunch of psychopathic liars.
yeson8won
@Robert, NYC: Gabby you miss the point – again.
The point is that no major world religion condones homosexual marriage.
Therefore banning homosexual marriage does not favour one religion over another.
Therefore there is no contravention of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, nor of the much misquoted phrase ‘separation of church and state’.
If you could just control your bigotry and hateful intolerance you may learn something.
christophe
As long as people continue to respond to this bigot, he is going to continually get entertainment from us. STOP replying to him, and he will go away. After a while he will get tired of having no interaction.
yeson8won
@christophe: Yet another intolerant, bigoted, hateful, closed-minded homosexual!
No wonder you guys can’t get any traction with normal people.
Robert, NYC
@yeson8won:
You consider yourself “normal”? Religious cultist nutjobs like you are usually insecure, frightened people who have issues with sex and sexuality and often sexually inadequate. You’re here also out of prurient interest and you seem to be obsessed with us that you can’t devote any of your time to the straights who really threaten marriage, the adulterers and philanderers and the ones who re-marry over and over, you fucking hypocrite.