Jump to content
LL Medico Diapers and More Bambino Diapers - ABDL Diaper Store

Congrats New York!


Recommended Posts

CONGRATULATIONS TO NEW YORK!!!! and all those who have fought for years for this day to come!!!

now for the rest of the 40 some odd states to take a page from NY's book!!!!

Link to comment
Guest diaperboykcmo

I have no problem with Civil unions, but a BIG problem with gay marriage! You can flame me all you want, you can give me negative marks. That's my stand!! No one infringed on gay's civil rights! Marriage is between a man and a woman!!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Guest diaperboykcmo

Hurray! One at a time :)

Keep dreaming, in the more conservative states we won't allow it! We will defeat it everytime! You can have your liberal states.

Seriously, why do I need to know what your sexual preference is. I just don't get it! If someone's gay good for them, why hold a news conference and announce it. Why make a big deal out of it. For you gay supporters, WTF do you want! What's your MO

Link to comment

I have no problem with Civil unions, but a BIG problem with gay marriage! You can flame me all you want, you can give me negative marks. That's my stand!! No one infringed on gay's civil rights! Marriage is between a man and a woman!!

Civil Unions and Marriage are unequal, therefore it must be one way or the other for ALL with no exceptions or someone's rights HAVE been infringed on :glare: If you think differently then you believe that it is proper for some people to have more rights than others- which flies in the face of the principles this nation was founded on :bash: If you thing anyone should be able to decide who someone else can marry, then let me exercise that same right over you- after all that is proper by your standards isn't it? :o If you won't let me do that to you then don't attempt to do that to me or anyone else B) It's that simple, and yet so many people cannot grasp it................

Bettypooh

  • Like 2
Link to comment

Seriously, why do I need to know what your sexual preference is. I just don't get it! If someone's gay good for them, why hold a news conference and announce it. Why make a big deal out of it. For you gay supporters, WTF do you want! What's your MO

Seriously, why do I need to know what your sexual preference is? I just don't get it! If someone's straight, good for them. Why hold a news conference and announce it? Why make a big deal of it? For you straight supporters, WTF do you want?! What's your MO?

  • Like 3
Link to comment

so two men getting married is them throwing their sexual preference in our faces? then that must be tru for a man and a woman getting married as well .... what i dont understand is .... if you are so agains gay people erm .... why are you posting in the gay forum???

my MO is that i do not believe the government should be in the business of defining what is basically a religious argument .... there is supposed to be a separation of church and state

  • Like 3
Link to comment

Unlike MA, NY allows out of state residents to get marriage licenses, so as long as you don't mind traveling the whole country is pretty much taken care of now.

Are states required to recognise valid marriages from out of state even if they wouldn't be legal within it?

Link to comment
Guest diaperboykcmo

Civil unions and Marriage. Yes there is a difference. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Since our founding, that's what Marriage has been. The gay people seem to want to hijack marriage, I'm cool with civil unions. I believe they should even have benefits, of a spouse. It should never be called Marriage, that's sacred. Based upon your logic, a man should be able to marry his dog!

Why am I commenting in a gay forum. I didn't even know I was lol. I read the most recent commnets, and it caught my attention. Oh yeah there is no such thing as seperation of church and state. The Good book says, Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. The good thing is, when it's all said and done. We'll all be held accountable, as God will make the ultimate judgement!!

I don't beleive straight people go around and announcing that we like Pussy! So we straight people don't really have a MO! Gay people seem to have one, for every action their is a reaction. We're only reacting, to what they're trying to do!

No gay marriage is not recognized in other states. So if you Marry in New York with their new law, you can't come to KCMO and still be married. We still have morals and values!

  • Like 1
Link to comment

Civil unions and Marriage. Yes there is a difference. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Since our founding, that's what Marriage has been. The gay people seem to want to hijack marriage, I'm cool with civil unions. I believe they should even have benefits, of a spouse. It should never be called Marriage, that's sacred. Based upon your logic, a man should be able to marry his dog!

Why am I commenting in a gay forum. I didn't even know I was lol. I read the most recent commnets, and it caught my attention. Oh yeah there is no such thing as seperation of church and state. The Good book says, Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. The good thing is, when it's all said and done. We'll all be held accountable, as God will make the ultimate judgement!!

I don't beleive straight people go around and announcing that we like Pussy! So we straight people don't really have a MO! Gay people seem to have one, for every action their is a reaction. We're only reacting, to what they're trying to do!

No gay marriage is not recognized in other states. So if you Marry in New York with their new law, you can't come to KCMO and still be married. We still have morals and values!

Ahhh yes, the religious nut speaks. Your head is so far up your ass I can barely hear you. Marriage is not sacred and you know it. Anyways, I don't care what your state thinks is moral or what your fictitious deity says. The law is the law, and if gay rights reaches the federal level, and that is likely the next goal, your state will have to accept it. Sooner or later, it will happen.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Guest diaperboykcmo

Jason and AB, you both know what you can do!! Keep dreaming with your fantasy lol! Go to Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma, Missouri ect. Come up here and tell us about Gay Marriage. While your at it, tell the balck people, how this is equal to their fight for civil rights lol. IDIOTS. Please stay living in your fantasy world.

Link to comment

Jason and AB, you both know what you can do!! Keep dreaming with your fantasy lol! Go to Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma, Missouri ect. Come up here and tell us about Gay Marriage. While your at it, tell the balck people, how this is equal to their fight for civil rights lol. IDIOTS. Please stay living in your fantasy world.

You assume too much. This can happen at the federal level if there is a Democratic house and senate as well as a president that is not afraid to do things. It may not happen for a little while, but just wait for it. You'll see. That said, desegregation is not the only thing in the civil rights act and nobody is comparing that to gay rights.

I think your religion has made you too narrow minded to see the oppression on the gay/lesbian community that is occurring now. People like you who are this dependent on religion for guidance have no actual thoughts of their own and contribute very little to society. I guess what I am saying is you are a tool.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Guest diaperboykcmo

You assume too much. This can happen at the federal level if there is a Democratic house and senate as well as a president that is not afraid to do things. It may not happen for a little while, but just wait for it. You'll see. That said, desegregation is not the only thing in the civil rights act and nobody is comparing that to gay rights.

I think your religion has made you too narrow minded to see the oppression on the gay/lesbian community that is occurring now. People like you who are this dependent on religion for guidance have no actual thoughts of their own and contribute very little to society. I guess what I am saying is you are a tool.

Jason, at the risk of getting banned. I won't say what I think of you! Go marry your dog, that's the slippery slope we're creating!!

Link to comment

I think in the past as soon as NY and CA do something....everyone else joins the bandwagon. So isn't CA still fighting back and forth on this issue? Once both states do it it will only be a matter of time. Just like the smoking bans. I could be wrong but just my observation.

But CONGRATZ NY!!! So what states are legal now?

Link to comment

If California recognizes same sex unions,and it probably will, that should be the proverbial "tipping point." In terms of population with California at #1 and New York at #3 the pressure to recognize the marriages nationwide will become overwhelming. It will most likely take another 10 years for it all to shake out but the shift in thinking and in law is looking inevitable. I suppose I should say that I never thought this would happen in my lifetime, so I am both overjoyed and pleasantly surprised. Something to bear in mind; on its face the "Defense of Marriage Act" or DOMA is unconstitutional. Every state is constitutionally bound to recognize and enforce any contract agreed to in another state. Marriage, outside of any religious ceremony/blessing, is really a contract subject to contract law. If it wasn't then a civil divorce would not be possible. Some states, such as Vermont where I married my now spouse, re-wrote their "marriage" laws to make all a civil union,in other words a contract between 2 adults that want to share their lives. The rest of the arguments are just a canard to distract the public from doing the right thing. After watching the debate in New York is is gratifying to see shallow bigotry and superstition overcome by empathy and understanding that we can't keep oppressing people because they don't fit a minorities warped moral dogma. I shall now sit back and enjoy the show.

Congratulations and thank you to the citizens of New York State for doing the right thing.

Link to comment

There seems to be a lot of hate for diaperboykcmo in this thread and I don't really see why its justified. I'm sure they'll correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like his only major issue is with the terminology - not the principal of gays having some union 'equal' to marriage. If that's the case I side with them. What is wrong with having the term "marriage" apply solely to a union between a man and a woman and having some other term to cover those cases where it applies to a woman and a women or a man and a man but conveys they same responsibilities and benefits?

I've no problem at all with gays having some construct equal to marriage, called it whatever: "gayrige", "civil partnership", "civil union", "gay marriage", "same sex unions", whatever, I don't see why you're so attached to it being "marrige". There is so much bile being directed at people who, for whatever reason, would rather a term with a deep religious meaning to them remains true to its original meaning - is it so unreasonable for them to ask that that term is not (for want of a better word) corrupted?

Link to comment

I don't see why you're so attached to it being "marrige".

Because that's what everybody else can have. When one [larger] group is allowed to do something and another [smaller] group is not, that's what we call discrimination. I enjoy a "marriage" to my wife. It's bogus that it's a religious term and attempts to cloud the debate by bringing God into it is just a smokescreen. I'm a died in the wool atheist and certainly wouldn't describe myself as being in a "union" or a "partnership" because I'm not religious. I'm married and that's that. I'm sure most other non-religious people would feel the same. Why shouldn't gay people be able to have the same things as the rest of us?

Saying why don't you just be happy with "civil union" or whatever is like saying "Why did Rosa Parks refuse to give up her seat? She was being allowed to stay on the bus, wasn't she? I mean, it was just a bus ride, it didn't really matter whether she sat in one row or another, did it?" Well that wasn't exactly the point, was it?! It's a civil rights issue.

  • Like 2
Link to comment

Because that's what everybody else can have. When one [larger] group is allowed to do something and another [smaller] group is not, that's what we call discrimination. I enjoy a "marriage" to my wife. It's bogus that it's a religious term and attempts to cloud the debate by bringing God into it is just a smokescreen. I'm a died in the wool atheist and certainly wouldn't describe myself as being in a "union" or a "partnership" because I'm not religious. I'm married and that's that. I'm sure most other non-religious people would feel the same. Why shouldn't gay people be able to have the same things as the rest of us?

Saying why don't you just be happy with "civil union" or whatever is like saying "Why did Rosa Parks refuse to give up her seat? She was being allowed to stay on the bus, wasn't she? I mean, it was just a bus ride, it didn't really matter whether she sat in one row or another, did it?" Well that wasn't exactly the point, was it?! It's a civil rights issue.

What he said. It is obviously a civil rights violation as any form of segregation is unconstitutional in the U.S.

That said, I think the way diaperboykcmo approached this thread disgusted me as religion should never have gotten involved in this discussion.

  • Like 1
Link to comment

To answer the question, it is up to each state to recognize a same sex marriage performed in another state. Here in washington a law was passed recognizing those married in another state who are of the same gender as a marriage in this state. So if you are married in NEW York, and live in washington, your employer has to recognize your spouse as your spouse when it comes to benefits and a hospital has to recognize the marriage as valid when it comes to medical decisions etc... as I said, it cdepends on each state.

Marriage is a concept created by men who wrote the holy books of different religions.

The country was also founded on the premise of slavery, so i guess we should also go back to enslaving entire races of people as well....

The crusades were fought on the premise that everyone should be christians and adhere to that belief system, so i guess all the christians so go around killing all non christians as well.... and then only certain branches of christianity count...

Link to comment

There seems to be a lot of hate for diaperboykcmo in this thread and I don't really see why its justified.

Because he came into a forum specifically intended for LGBT people, immediately trivializing our right for equal rights, spouting logical fallacies insultingly, all the same time saying he "doesn't care" how we respond (and, yet, still getting butthurt when people point out that he's a drooling moron).

Commonly, this is called "trolling" and it deserves every ounce of vocal contempt that it gets.

I'm sure they'll correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like his only major issue is with the terminology - not the principal of gays having some union 'equal' to marriage.

This is a fallacious premise until every single state in the US offers civil unions with the same rights on paper that marriage has, so yes. You are wrong. Furthermore, the Supreme Court ruled that separate but equal (precisely what a separation of terms would be) is never equal in 1954 in Brown v Board of Education. This applies to all cases of separation of civil rights and all civil rights, not just the ones that conservatives think are valid.

If that's the case I side with them. What is wrong with having the term "marriage" apply solely to a union between a man and a woman and having some other term to cover those cases where it applies to a woman and a women or a man and a man but conveys they same responsibilities and benefits?

Internationally and historically, that would be a redefinition of Marriage to conform to modern Christian standards, and, barring an excuse other than the religious, a violation of the First Amendment.

I've no problem at all with gays having some construct equal to marriage, called it whatever: "gayrige", "civil partnership", "civil union", "gay marriage", "same sex unions", whatever, I don't see why you're so attached to it being "marrige". There is so much bile being directed at people who, for whatever reason, would rather a term with a deep religious meaning to them remains true to its original meaning - is it so unreasonable for them to ask that that term is not (for want of a better word) corrupted?

You are ignorant of the original meaning of marriage. You should really research that, because your argument is not based in anything remotely resembling historical fact.

  • Like 1
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...