New York State legalizes same-sex marriage

[dgs49]

Andrew, what you have said, in effect, is, if neither party will be "disserviced" (a word with which I am unfamiliar) by splitting up, then there is nothing wrong with it.

I simply say, breaking a promise is wrong. Even if the person to whom the promise was made forgives you or "absolves" you of the obligation. If there is a reward in the afterlife for virtue and a punishment in the afterlife for one's transgressions, the forgiveness of the wronged person will not make a broken promise any less wrong, particularly when the promise was made under the solemn and ceremonial circumstances of a typical wedding. Wrong is wrong. If you steal something and the victim says, "don't worry about it," you have still committed a morally unacceptable act. Forgiveness doesn't change it.

I do not propose that civil marriages be made mandatorily perpetual - that's a legal point that has been resolved for a long, long time. Clearly, there are couples that go together like oil and water, and to have them remain together is a "disservice" to them and everyone around them. We all know couples who SHOULD get divorced, because their marriage is wrecking the lives of children, parents, brothers & sisters, neighbors, etc.

For those who have bothered to read what I have posted on the subject, there is not now, nor has there ever been any principle I know of that prevents any two (or more) people who love each other from making a lifetime commitment to each other. Such a commitment violates no laws, no religious principles, and no ethical considerations that I have ever heard of. And while it is a matter of some debate whether such a commitment made by two unrelated people of the same gender should be given the same status in law as a traditional "marriage," I personally don't give a flying fuck what they call it or what my state legislature says about it.

But what those "committed" people do in their bedrooms has moral ramifications. I personally believe - and I'm in line with the vast majority of the human race, regardless of religious affiliation or the lack thereof - that homosexual sodomy is (a) repulsive, (b) a biological absurdity, (c) morally unacceptable. I also have come to accept the fact that there is no good justification to have civil authorities concerning themselves with whether or not anyone is engaging in such activities in private. So I find myself in grudging agreement with those who believe that there is a Constitutional "Right of Privacy," even though I personally believe that such a right is fictitious.

Are we clear?

[quaddriver]

- that homosexual sodomy is (a) repulsive, (b) a biological absurdity, (c) morally unacceptable.

what about good oldfashioned rug munching?

you know....eating at the Y
talking to the bearded clam
french cuisine

Dont leave out the lesbos. Especially the hot ones.

[Sean]

I simply say, breaking a promise is wrong. Even if the person to whom the promise was made forgives you or "absolves" you of the obligation.

What about a scenario in which the person you made the promise to wants you to break it? Is it not morally wrong to refuse to break a promise and make them live in misery because of your selfishness?

I personally believe - and I'm in line with the vast majority of the human race, regardless of religious affiliation or the lack thereof - that homosexual sodomy is (a) repulsive, (b) a biological absurdity, (c) morally unacceptable.

Oh no you're fucking not! You're in line with a small number of bigoted fuckwits. You are only a small step away from running around with a pillowcase on your head (or maybe you're not... it wouldn't surprise me...). Your views are repugnant and despicable. If there is a hell it is much more likely to be reserved for you and your kind rather than homosexuals.

[Andrew D]

Andrew, what you have said, in effect, is, if neither party will be "disserviced" (a word with which I am unfamiliar) by splitting up, then there is nothing wrong with it.

The word I used is "disserved".

I simply say, breaking a promise is wrong. Even if the person to whom the promise was made forgives you or "absolves" you of the obligation. If there is a reward in the afterlife for virtue and a punishment in the afterlife for one's transgressions, the forgiveness of the wronged person will not make a broken promise any less wrong, particularly when the promise was made under the solemn and ceremonial circumstances of a typical wedding. Wrong is wrong. If you steal something and the victim says, "don't worry about it," you have still committed a morally unacceptable act. Forgiveness doesn't change it.

Forgiveness comes after one has done something to be forgiven for. That is not what is at issue.

What is at issue is two people's agreeing, when neither needs the other's forgiveness, that their marriage should be over. In those circumstances, neither person has broken a promise to the other. The two people have simply reached a new agreement which supersedes the previous one. How is that wrong?

[dgs49]

Sean, I seem to have struck a nerve with you. I can only point out that you are factually incorrect. Indeed, "incorrect" doesn't begin to describe how far away from reality your statements are.

Why do you suppose that virtually every society in the history of the world has condemned homosexual sodomy?

Really, Old Sport,it is fine to have your own views on a subject, but you ought not claim than those whose views differ are "a small number," when the evidence against that is overwhelming. Mountainous. Undeniable. Even in countries with liberal views on homosexuality, it is nothing more than tolerance of what most people find repugnant.

Andrew, you are arguing for the sake of arguing. Too much time on your hands, I suppose.

[The Hen]

If that is the way it is in America, I have another reason to be glad I live in Australia.

[Scooter]

It's not. Same-sex marriage is supported by a clear majority of Americans.

Dave's frustration comes from recognizing that he is part of a rapidly shrinking minority, which within ten years will be regarded as the lunatic fringe.

[Gob]

Why do you suppose that virtually every society in the history of the world has condemned homosexual sodomy?

Because in every society there are large numbers of people who find it easier to hate than to understand, and easier to condemn than to think, normally due to unintelligent.

Not looking at anyone in particular of course...

[Sean]

In any thinking society Dave is already regarded as the lunatic fringe. He just doesn't realise it yet. That's what he gets for being a moron...

[Andrew D]

Andrew, you are arguing for the sake of arguing. Too much time on your hands, I suppose.

No. You are evading for whatever purpose your evasions are intended to accomplish. You are evidently unwilling to provide straightforward answers to straightforward questions put to you:

If both parties to an agreement decide that it is better that they dissolve the agreement than that they adhere to it, there is no broken promise.

A has obligations to B; B has obligations to A. A is perfectly free to relieve B of B's obligations to A, and B is perfectly free to relieve A of A's obligations to B. If A and B both choose to do so, neither of them has committed any breach of any promise to the other.

Why is that wrong?

To keep the issue straightforward, assume that the two spouses have no children and that neither has ever been unfaithful to the other. They simply decide that it would be better for both of them if they were no longer married.

And that is not simply a self-centered decision on either side. The wife not only recognizes that she would be happier if no longer married to the husband; she also recognizes that the husband would be happier if no longer married to her, and she wants the husband to be happy.

What is the justification for forcing that couple to remain married?

Wife thinks that divorce will be good for Husband.
Husband thinks that divorce will be good for Wife.
Wife thinks that divorce will be good for Wife.
Husband thinks that divorce will be good for Husband.

Who will be disserved by divorce in those circumstances?

Both parties will be disserved by the continuation of the marriage. So why should they continue it?

Instead of answering such straightforward questions, you wander off into issues involving your breaking a promise to give some one a car, a husband's abandoning his wife for his male lover, a "perfect" adulterous affair, etc. All of those situations involve one person's breaching a promise made to another. But (yet again) this:

If both parties to an agreement decide that it is better that they dissolve the agreement than that they adhere to it, there is no broken promise.

is not that kind of situation.

In the situation which I (and others) have repeatedly described -- not one of your nonanalogous hypotheticals -- do you think that the couple should be compelled to remain married? If so, why? Do you think that the couple should remain married, even if not compelled to do so? If so, why?

[rubato]

I think that AndrewD views marriage through the rather narrow lens of a set of legal obligations enforceable by the state rather than the type of obligations one imposes on oneself and which are enforced by an internal and more exacting guide to behavior and thought.

yrs,
rubato

[Andrew D]

I think that AndrewD views marriage through the rather narrow lens of a set of legal obligations enforceable by the state rather than the type of obligations one imposes on oneself and which are enforced by an internal and more exacting guide to behavior and thought.

I think that rubato would know rather more about how I view marriage than he does now if he were to pay attention to what I have posted on the subject and then, if he cares to know more, ask me whatever questions he has.

Meanwhile, I have a question for him. Consider the situation under discussion:

To keep the issue straightforward, assume that the two spouses have no children and that neither has ever been unfaithful to the other. They simply decide that it would be better for both of them if they were no longer married.

And that is not simply a self-centered decision on either side. The wife not only recognizes that she would be happier if no longer married to the husband; she also recognizes that the husband would be happier if no longer married to her, and she wants the husband to be happy. The husband not only recognizes that he would be happier if no longer married to the wife; he also recognizes that the wife would be happier if no longer married to him, and he wants the wife to be happy.

Wife thinks that divorce will be good for Husband.
Husband thinks that divorce will be good for Wife.
Wife thinks that divorce will be good for Wife.
Husband thinks that divorce will be good for Husband.

In those circumstances (and setting aside the purely legal result), what "internal and more exacting guide to behavior and thought" leads to the conclusion that the couple should remain married?

[rubato]

I think that AndrewD views marriage through the rather narrow lens of a set of legal obligations enforceable by the state rather than the type of obligations one imposes on oneself and which are enforced by an internal and more exacting guide to behavior and thought.

I think that rubato would know rather more about how I view marriage than he does now if he were to pay attention to what I have posted on the subject and then, if he cares to know more, ask me whatever questions he has.

Meanwhile, I have a question for him. Consider the situation under discussion:

To keep the issue straightforward, assume that the two spouses have no children and that neither has ever been unfaithful to the other. They simply decide that it would be better for both of them if they were no longer married.

And that is not simply a self-centered decision on either side. The wife not only recognizes that she would be happier if no longer married to the husband; she also recognizes that the husband would be happier if no longer married to her, and she wants the husband to be happy. The husband not only recognizes that he would be happier if no longer married to the wife; he also recognizes that the wife would be happier if no longer married to him, and he wants the wife to be happy.

Wife thinks that divorce will be good for Husband.
Husband thinks that divorce will be good for Wife.
Wife thinks that divorce will be good for Wife.
Husband thinks that divorce will be good for Husband.

In those circumstances (and setting aside the purely legal result), what "internal and more exacting guide to behavior and thought" leads to the conclusion that the couple should remain married?

You confirm my analysis. Exactly.


yrs,
rubato

[Andrew D]

In other words, you have no answer to my question.

Screw whatever the law has to say about it. (We all know what the law has to say about it anyway.)

Each spouse recognizes that the other would be happier if the two of them were to agree to terminate the marriage. (Each spouse also recognizes that he or she him- or herself would be happier if the two of them were to agree to terminate the marriage.)

What moral principle(s) lead(s) to the conclusion that in those circumstances, one spouse should refuse to do what he or she knows would make the other spouse happier than he or she is now? (Or to the conclusion that in those circumstances, both spouses should refuse to do what each spouse knows will make the other spouse happier than he or she is now?)

Do you have an actual answer?

[quaddriver]

It's not. Same-sex marriage is supported by a clear majority of Americans.

Dave's frustration comes from recognizing that he is part of a rapidly shrinking minority, which within ten years will be regarded as the lunatic fringe.

that clear majority of americans become strangely silent a certain tuesday every november....

[Grim Reaper]

Why do you suppose that virtually every society in the history of the world has condemned homosexual sodomy?

The population is constantly growing, that means that what was once rare becomes more noticeable with a large sample size. What was once easy to sweep away under the rug of hatred is now becoming harder to ignore.

And as more people become aware of this situation, the support for condemning it has eroded constantly over the years.

Andrew, you are arguing for the sake of arguing. Too much time on your hands, I suppose.

Now this is the pot calling the kettle black.

[Gob]

The Big Apple said "I do" to a new era of gay rights this morning and celebrated New York City's first same-sex weddings.

Chelsea residents Phyllis Siegel, 77, and Connie Kopelov, 85, got hitched at the marriage bureau on Worth Street in Lower Manhattan at 9:02 a.m., setting off wedding bells across Gotham.

City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, who is openly gay, witnessed the ceremony that was officiated by City Clerk Michael McSweeney.

‘‘It was just so amazing,’’ said Siegel, who has been with her love for 23 years. ‘‘It’s the only way I can describe it. I lost my breath and a few tears.’’

She added: ‘‘This is the first day of the rest of our lives.’’

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/firs ... z1T3m45eOV

It's the end of heterosexual marriage I tell you!!

[Gob]

Gay marriage 'to be made legal in Britain by 2015'



The coalition is to push ahead with plans for gay marriage following the personal intervention of David Cameron.

Liberal Democrat Lynne Featherstone will today unveil plans to legislate to bring in gay marriage before 2015.

The Equalities Minister will also announce that Britain should be a ‘world leader for gay rights’.
Vowing to be a personal ‘champion for gay rights’, Miss Featherstone will risk controversy by arguing that the Coalition should go even further in future.

At present, gays and lesbians are allowed to enter civil partnerships, which offer most of the legal protections of marriage. But the term ‘marriage’ is not used.

Miss Featherstone will announce that a consultation will begin next March on allowing homosexuals to get married. A change in the law will follow the consultation.

Under the plans, same-sex couples will be able to have full marriages in registry offices, as heterosexual couples can.

But they will still be barred from getting married in churches and other religious buildings – even though some denominations want to offer the services. Coalition sources said ministers are determined to enact the change before the next election.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z1YFXf49zK

[dgs49]

Rather sheds a new light on the expression, "Fairy-tale Wedding," doesn't it?

[Grim Reaper]

DADT is now officially over.

“Today, with implementation of the new law fully in place, we are a stronger joint force, a more tolerant joint force, a force of more character and more honor, more in keeping with our own values,” said Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.