Gay marriage to solve all of New York’s problems
Yeah, scroll through the news websites and look at all of the happy homosexuals. They’re so happy that now they can get married in New York…well, after the governor signs the bill which passed the Senate last night. Have you taken a drive through Upstate New York lately? Seen the closed factories, the lines at the welfare offices? Have you been through downtown Syracuse during Christmas? Seen the urban blight?
But. that doesn’t matter because all of the deviants can marry each other now. The types of pirates who don’t show up in children’s books can enter into marital bliss and that’s all that matters, I suppose. So what if businesses are leaving New York in droves leaving massive unemployment in it’s wake…the smugglers of bones can exchange rings.
So what if paying taxes is almost a full time job in New York, biters of pillows and munchers of carpets are joining in matrimonial bliss.
Nice to see that the New York Legislature has it’s priorities aligned properly.
Category: Politics
I could write a 10-page essay about this outrage but won’t. The big question that no one has answered is why do we NEED gay marriage? There is no answer, and no, gay marriage is not now — nor has it ever been — a civil right. If it were, you would have to pass a law to allow it.
New York just swirled further down the toilet as it destroys families and morality. Welfare. Free needles to drug addicts. Taxpayer funded abortion on demand by underage girls without parental consent. Now gay marriage.
New York will now be a magnet for gays and liberals and perverts, while people who oppose gay marriage will be driven further into the political minority. The fact that it will now be taught in elementary schools as legitimate (indoctrination not instruction) means you will see “For Sale” signs pop up across New York State — including my own.
I personally know two of the State Senators who voted yes. I used to work for the Senate Republicans and I ran for NY State Senate in 1990. I am furious. Let’s just leave it at that.
I hate no one, but some people hates the stability and dignity of a marriage between a man and women enough to undermine it with the notion that gay marriage is the same as stright marriage. The gay mafia has won again.
I haven’t been to NY for years, but a close friend rejoined the Army last year after finding the grass back home wasn’t greener. He hauled trash from NYC back upstate (he lived near Ithaca), saw his family only a few hours a week, and brought home about as much as he did before he ETS’ed in 2007 as an E-4. He told me that the city street leading to the pickup site was worse than any place he’d seen in Iraq, with drivers waiting in line for hours (he was not paid unless he had to wait more than 8 hours) and using the streets as their toilet/trash can.
Jonn is right, though, and I fully expect gay marriage to not only clean up NYC but also to create better working conditions and compensation. Boy am I glad I wasn’t stupid enough to pick Fort Drum for my next assignment.
I’m sorry guys, but I don’t really see what difference this makes. I fail to grasp the reasons behind opposing this stuff, but if you have a good argument, I’m open to hearing it.
So gay marriage is legal in New York. Yippee. It affects me and my life how? Zero. Not a thing is going to change in my life as a result of gay marriage being legal in NY. So who really gives a shit?
If this is being discussed, some good to know background: http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/06/trailblazing_a_history_of_gay.html
The reason this is being fought is because this is one more step in the FORCED acceptance by society of a deviant lifestyle.
No one is born gay. There has been NO credible published peer-reviewed study that shows a “gay gene”. Gays don’t want to dins one, either, because if it is ever proven that there IS a gay gene, then that would prove the condition is a mutation of the normal DNA, and thus a defect. If that is the case, then society would have every right and obligation to find a cure for the condition.
That, however, is NOT what homosexuals want. They want their perversion to be “accepted” as normal by society, and forced into everyone’s life.
I don’t want my children being exposed to such a concept. I want them to understand that homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle, fraught with peril more so than our own.
For you, Tim: http://www.bio.davidson.edu/Courses/genomics/2002/Pierce/gaygene.htm
Personally, I could give a fat rat monkey’s ass whether the state legalizes gay marriage or not. To me, marriage is a matter of the church. If they want to legalize it, fine, just don’t force the church to accept and perform it.
#5 Tim:
“I don’t want my children being exposed to such a concept. I want them to understand that homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle, fraught with peril more so than our own.”
Ok, well then teach your kids what you think is right. I’ll teach my kids what I think is right. The fact that you have kids shouldn’t mean that others need to change their lifestyle to be in line with your own worldview.
This is horrible and must be stopped. We need to fight this in NY and any other state. We need to combat homosexuals in any form. Keep your deviants away from me and out of my face. First NY and then the world. Fight the homosexuals for a purer american.
Strike: The problem with gay marriage is that it is unnecessary, deeply divisive and will prove to be costly in the long run. There are legitimate reasons for traditional marriage. Marriage creates duties and responsibilities for each spouse, especially as it relates to raising children and fostering moral behavior. With those duties and responsibilites come certain benefits. For moral reasons, we expect the husband to support and defend the wife, particularly in her role as mother. The legal and social systems are aligned with that moral model. Now, we are told that model is wrong, morals are irrelevant and we have to align on a model that no one can explain the need for (other than the fact gays need to feel equal or such). All laws have to have a basis in morality. If there is a moral void in the law, the people will not support it. It will be a nullity. This divisive issue will result in a deep divide in our community. I already see it happening in my town. So while the gays who live in their Greenwich Village and Lark Street enclaves celebrate, people who believe in traditional marriage are belittled and forced to compromise their morals. Being told that your morals are irrelevant is just as offensive as someone telling a gay person their homosexual feelings are wrong. Good for you that this issue this doesn’t affect you now. It will. Because homosexuality is now institutionalized and endorsed in law, government benefits like tax policies, educational programs, entitlement programs, and protected statuses will all be affected. Taxpayer funded transgender operations? Get your checkbook out. Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual Owned-Business Grants? Housing preferences and red-lining lawsuits against lending institutions? A tidal wave of frivolous lawsuits for anti-gay discrimination? Stand by. For all of you people living outside of New York, gay married couples from New York will be coming to your state for test cases to undo the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Unfortunately, the reason these issues haven’t been debated is because the media only puts nut jobs from the Westboro Baptist Church on when they… Read more »
“A purer American”, anonymous? Wow.
Ok, well then teach your kids what you think is right. I’ll teach my kids what I think is right.
==========
If only it were that simple. This will now be taught in schools to everyone’s children as ‘normal’ and to be not only accepted but praised and celebrated. Recall the Kevin “Safe Schools Czar” Jennings “Fistgate” scandal.
Our culture has been defining deviancy down and declaring it “normal” for decades now. It is only going to continue. And it affects the entire culture.
There is no answer, and no, gay marriage is not now — nor has it ever been — a civil right. If it were, you would have to pass a law to allow it. ========== Even if it were a civil right, no homosexuals are denied the “civil right” of marriage now, nor have they ever been. What they (and everyone else) have been denied is creating a new union between same sex couples. All this time, neither homosexuals nor heterosexuals could join in legally recognized same-sex unions. At the same time, both heterosexuals and homosexuals could always marry, as ‘marriage’ has always been defined. What the LGBT movement has done over the decades since the 1970s is work to redefine cultural norms. Marriage and family have now been redefined by their movement to mean anything they want them to mean. They have attacked marriage saying that it is an oppressive and discriminatory institution, even though they have had every ‘right’ to join that institution all this time. Just look at former NJ GOV Jim McGreevy. He is a homosexual and he married and had kids and had a family. Just like everyone else, he was not denied the “right” of marriage. So this was never about “rights”. This was always about defining deviancy down, redefining cultural norms and forcing American culture to accept and promote the LGBT lifestyle. They started with tearing down the institution of marriage. Then they moved on to say that men and women were the same as far as parenting, and two dads or two moms were equal to a mother and father. Everything was about “love”. Right, because the love of two fathers will make up for the fact that a child does not have a mother’s influence around. A woman cannot take the place of a father and a man cannot take the place of a mother in a child’s upbringing. A woman can never understand what a boy/young man goes through growing up and a man can never understand what a girl/young woman goes through growing up. Yet, that is exactly what… Read more »
That’s a pretty toxic post. I thought you didn’t have a problem with gays, just the DADT repeal timing. What happened? I think the fight over the semantics of marrige is silly and that civil unions (or anything else they want to call the legal equality) are just fine.
This would be a great discussion for…the new forum!
NSOM, it wasn’t meant to be toxic, it was meant to be realistic. All of things that could have been beneficial for New Yorkers, like rolling back some of the draconian taxes that hamstring employment in New York for the last three decades, were lost for a week to fight this stupid, useless battle to give special rights to a tiny minority.
I guess my point is that there are more important things going on this country that shouldn’t be put on the back burner so politicians can pander for votes from their base.
If Gay Marriage is legal, why not multiple wives, marriage to one’s pet, etc. Marriage is, was, and will be a sacred religous vow, guaranteed by the gummint, to maintain moral standards. I believe that gayiety does not affect me if it is kept in private, just as one cannot fornicate on the public sidewalks, nor board airliners in womens underwear, (Ooops, that one has been cast aside), nor attempt to cross breed with animals. Gay men/women, should be able to visit their significant other in the hospital, and other civil details, but that would not require legalization of same sex marriage. Civil unions could handle all that, maintaining the sanctity of the wedding vows.
Jonn,
Sure, I get where you were going with the “don’t they have bigger fish to fry” line of thought and you’re right. It just came off as very acerbic and derogatory toward gay people in general along the way. It struck me as a shift in attitude, you didn’t come off that way to me before.
Today Queer Marriage, Tomorrow Polygamy! There’s no reason to not allow that or really anything now.
Next step is emulating Caligula and marrying your horse.
Marriage should be restricted to a union between ONE man and ONE woman. Anything else should be forbidden, and prosecuted when found.
For all of you people living outside of New York, gay married couples from New York will be coming to your state for test cases to undo the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
==========
Yep. Via AoSHQ:
———-
Similarly we were told we had no need of a Constitutional Marriage Amendment, because DOMA would protect states from having gay marriage forced upon them by lawsuit. The lawsuit chain would be thus: gay marriage is granted in one state; the couple moves to a state where gay marriage does not exist; the couple sues the state on the theory that the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution demands that one state respect the marriage contract of another.
Well, right now Obama is talking up repeal of that provision, which would in very short order impose gay marriage by lawsuit on all fifty states.
In addition, the claims that we do not need a Federal Marriage Amendment to preclude this possibility were always disingenuous. The gay marriage lobby always intended this one-state-leads-to-another plan and fought the Federal Marriage Amendment largely to leave this option on the table. The claims that DOMA would serve as protection against this were always dishonest. They knew DOMA could and would be changed on a whim, and if it couldn’t be changed legislatively, it could be rubbished in the courts.
———-
Actually, I think I’m being consistent. The politicians are shoving this down our throats because they can’t fix the economy or win the war against terror the way the Left wants them to accomplish these things so they’re dangling these pretty and useless baubles in front of the base so they can say they’ve accomplished something. And all its all just a distraction from reality.
Yeah, I probably could have toned down the name-calling, but it’s all showmanship, isn’t it? I’ve always said that I don’t care what other people do in their bedrooms with other consenting adults and I really don’t…but this isn’t about doing it in the privacy of their homes. It’s about deviant behavior in public. Look at the article in today’s Stars & Stripes. It’s about throwing open bedroom doors. Like Zombie’s absolutely disgusting report on the Folsom Street Fair (heed the warning at the link). It’s not about equality, it’s about exceptional-ism. And although the gay movement is adamant about this not being about sex, what else is being gay about if not sexual behavior?
There are gay people who frequent this blog who I consider my friends and whose opinions I value, but they aren’t in my face about accepting what they do when we’re not engaged in verbal intercourse.
[…] Gay marriage to solve all of New York’s problems – This Ain’t Hell […]
Once again the US has turned it’s back on God with this poor piece of legislation. I know not all Americans are for this to include all of you, but it makes you wonder how much God is going to punish us. Do you think Obama will not be reelcted?
Great topic of conversation. =) #12, totally. I wish I could see, but… yeah, wishful thinking… and something I can only imagine as a woman. Guys are so lucky in that respect, going way back to the Greco-Roman times and the answered question of which gender receives most pleasure, yada yada yada… At the same time, as a woman, men have so much to learn about us as well. And this is speaking only from a perspective of a woman who has had enough freedom in this country to voice her opinion… And Jonn, absolutely, it becomes a tedious matter when it comes to people one cares about and, perhaps, people who will aid in the continuation of knowledge and sentiment for years to come, no matter the generational gap and the inconsistencies in between. The element of respect is something so fragile. It’s so easy for a “victim” to “victimize” and the “bully” to become the one “bullied.” And neutrality, well, that in itself becomes an issue because it can so easily be “labeled” as something that is “pacifist.” So, going off the last (#20) comment, it does become something so incredibly personal. I think it might be more personal than any of us care to imagine.
I’m having a hard time getting worked up over this. I think they should start aiming for civil union since Marriage as a term is strictly religious anyway and as such it should be left up to the church/temple/sacrificial altar of their choice. I also think that #20 nailed it and that this is a political ploy to keep votes up. It may have an (un)intended consequence of drumming up tourism to the state which would in a round about way help, but at the same time they could do much better in helping the state. It just feels like tilting at windmills all around though. One side thinks that’s all they’ll need to stay afloat and the other keeps making me think of the fluoride speech. That said, the naked parades, fetish parades and blatant flaunting need to go away. I’m indifferent to rump rangers, I just don’t need to see it involuntarily.
How funny can get it? Adam and Eve bit of the apple for the first sin and now it is the “Big Apple” that is being bit off of again. Adam blamed Eve and Eve blamed the “snake”. Who will New York blame when God ask..Where are you New York/or USA?
Meh, there’s already so many of teh gheys in NYC that the marriage license fees from them alone will solve New York’s budget issue. (Yes, children, that was sarcasm.)
AFAIC, keep it in your freakin bedrooms, which is the issue I have with the militant gay lobbies. It’s not enough for them to live their lives like the rest of us. It’s gotta be the, “We’re here, we’re queer, we’re in your face” bullshit that pisses me off.
Sorry gheys, I like pussy, but you don’t see me running up and down the street screaming it at everyone.
I’m going to boil this issue down to its most simple terms to show how legally absurd the notion of “gay marriage” really is.
Once upon a time there were two colors: Red and Blue. Everyone knew what Red was when they saw Red, and everyone knew what Blue was when saw Blue. Blue was Blue and Red was Red.
One day, the Blues noticed that they were not treated the same as the Reds and became extremely jealous.
“This is not right,” the Blues complained, even though they received the same jobs, insurance and entitlements of the Reds. “We must also be considered Red in order to preserve our ‘civil rights’.”
And so, the Government, in its infinite wisdom and noble pursuit to eradicate jealousy from the political landscape, got together and passed a law that said that Blue was now Red, and everyone must recognize Blue as Red.
There was some trifling political discussion about establishing “purple” in order to avoid the absolute illogical result of declaring “Blue” as “Red”, but the Blues would have no part of it. “It’s Red or dead!” they screamed. And so it was. The Government declared Blue as Red.
This was a great day. The Blues rejoiced and declared themselves Red. The Government pronounced that Blue is Red and anyone not recognizing Blue as Red shall be held up to public scorn and ridicule. The Reds sat in silence and wondered what the hell just happened, despite the timeless understanding that Blue meant Blue and Red meant Red.
Yet, despite the government decree, everyone still knew what Red was when they saw it and everyone knew what blue was when they saw. Red was still red and blue was still blue, despite the government decree.
And so, in a land far away, where people use words like “kinectic military action” when others simply say “war,” and they utter the word “government investment” to describe “government spending”, people are now left to ponder “Red” and “Blue” and what the hell it all means.
This is progress.
I live in a civil union state. It is not the same as marriage, minus the word marriage. If straight people really wanted to keep marriage a biblical, church based one man, one woman institution you would have to separate it from the government institution. That would mean ALL (straight and gay) couples get a civil union that is recognized by the state and federal government and churches recognize the union of marriage but it provides no government benefits /recognition.
And quick responses to everything else: The whole idea that one man one woman marriage is biblical is false, and the idea that what we have today is traditional marriage is also false. Marriage used to only be for white people, make the woman literal property and serve as a defense for rape.
Fistgate never happened. It was shown to be made up.
Folsom isn’t just for gay people, there are lots of sexually deviant straight people and most gay people don’t go to Folsom.
Um, J, BS! Fistgate? http://www.massresistance.org/docs/issues/fistgate/index.html
The bible never endorsed man-man, or woman-woman marriage.
Your second sentence? “It is not the same as marriage, minus the word marriage.”. So, that would be, “It is not the same as ________”? Is that what you were going for?
Nope, Folsom certainly isn’t just for homosexuals, there are all kinds of other deviancy on display.
J in 29: “Marriage used to only be for white people”
Really? Source please?
Gay indoctrination — uhhhh, I mean instruction in our schools.
http://www.cnsnews.com/cnsnewstv/v/93691
Brought to you courtesy of the Federal Government.
Gay marriage isn’t about getting married. Gays don’t need to get married. It’s about getting into the schools.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/06/28/the-billion-dollar-gay-wedding-boost.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thedailybeast%2Farticles+%28The+Daily+Beast+-+Latest+Articles%29