New York State legalizes same-sex marriage

[dgs49]

Grim, old buddy, old pal, I think I understand now.

You are one of those folks who believes that the current generation of Liberals is more intelligent and enlightened than any other culture in the world, and every other generation that preceded us (all of which, by the way, are and were unanimously in agreement with the proposition that homosexual sodomy is morally repugnant, and believe that the idea of gay "marriage" is a biological and sociological absurdity).

Your opinions are not worth the time and effort that it takes to respond; your mind is about as open as the most strident Bible thumper in southwest Arkansas.

But thanks for pitching in to this discussion.

[Timster]

Unanimous? Really?

Speaking of generations of "moral" repugnance. Simple question Dave. How often do you masturbate?

They get harder as you go on.

[Grim Reaper]

Grim, old buddy, old pal, I think I understand now.

No. You don't. You're not even close to understanding. You haven't even begun upon the path toward understanding. You're hiding under your bed, refusing to even look upon the path.

You are one of those folks who believes that the current generation of Liberals is more intelligent and enlightened than any other culture in the world, and every other generation that preceded us (all of which, by the way, are and were unanimously in agreement with the proposition that homosexual sodomy is morally repugnant, and believe that the idea of gay "marriage" is a biological and sociological absurdity).

Every other generation was for slavery too. A bunch were for ritual sacrifices. A lot liked the idea of oppressive religious regimes. What happened before should not be considered sacred and never subject to change.

And I'm still waiting for an explanation for how same-sex marriage can be a biological or sociological absurdity while two sterile people of opposing genders are just fine. Your blatant hypocrisy is astoundingly obvious to anyone who takes more than a second to think things through.

Your opinions are not worth the time and effort that it takes to respond; your mind is about as open as the most strident Bible thumper in southwest Arkansas.

Here's a clue for you. Refusing to adapt to changing social norms makes a person close minded. Rejecting any new changes without bothering to consider them makes a person close minded. That would be you.

Me? I'm open to adaptation. I'm willing to see what works and give it a try. That makes me open minded.

You're perverting the definition of a word to fit your agenda. And it's hilarious that you would mention bible thumping, when that's precisely what you're doing by opposing same-sex marriage. You're supporting a religious view that should have no room in legal matters.

[Liberty1]

I don't see any where that expanding the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples somehow rejects the concept that different sex couples can be married.

Culture evolves, Lib. We don't speak the same language we spoke 300 years ago. We don't dress the same way as we did 300 years ago. We don't hold slaves. That doesn't mean what happened before was stupid -- and if you think that's the point here, you're completely missing it.

Virtually every society in recorded history has defined marriage as being between man and woman. Heterosexual relationships are considered, "normal" in these societies while homosexual relationships are considered abnormal, which they obviously are being only 3% of the population. I have no problem with gays personally as people, my 2 best freinds in high school were gay as is my sister. But normalizing their behaivors just to allow them to feel normal in society is not best for society as a whole. And you can have no argument to the contrary, same sex marriage did not exist anywhere in the world until about 10 years ago, therefore any evidence on it's effect on society is inconsequential, you have no evidence. All you're saying is let's change the institution that's been around for all of recorded history, in order to try something that's never been done before.

And why do you think you can say this and impose your experiments on the rest of society ----> leftest arrogance

Leftest elitism and arrogance is based on nothing beyond pure arrogance. Leftests feel they are right for the simple fact they think it and you will demonized anyoone who simply disagrees with you. This thread is a prime example. Conservatives rely on history, philosophy, the Bible, and human nature as a basis of their beliefs, the left disregard all of these with arrogant arguments of “tolerance” , feelings of self importance and irrelevant claims of "progress". Leftest arrogance is merely a cloak intended to end debate from those you disagree with, while trying to change culture, using nothing more than feeling and opinions.

I do believe that gays were born that way, made by God. But that doesn't make them normal any more than someone born with no arms, or with an IQ of 30 could be considered normal. That is to say everyone should strive to improve themselves and overcome their shortcomings as best they can. I've met a guy with no arms who plays trombone, I've recently seen an article about another guy with no arms who just qualified for the olympic archery team, they don't let their abnormalities stop them from becoming as nomal as possible and excelling. Hey, I was born with crappy eyesight, but I don't walk around with 20/200 vision. Remember there is no right to marriage or to even have any personal relationships. You cannot force anyone to like or love you.

And Grim, you seem to be trying to make some case that arguments against same sex marriage based on religious belief are irrelevant. Anyones belief against gay marriage based on religious belief has an equal weight as one that is not. Relativity of belief holds for everyone with a position on same sex marriage, even if it is based just on your feelings and opinions.

[Grim Reaper]

I have no problem with gays personally as people, my 2 best freinds in high school were gay as is my sister. But normalizing their behaivors just to allow them to feel normal in society is not best for society as a whole. And you can have no argument to the contrary, same sex marriage did not exist anywhere in the world until about 10 years ago, therefore any evidence on it's effect on society is inconsequential, you have no evidence. All you're saying is let's change the institution that's been around for all of recorded history, in order to try something that's never been done before.

You say you have no problem with gays, while at the same time calling them out for being "abnormal". Not exactly making a good argument there.

And you're either a liar or too lazy to do real research. Same-sex marriages have existed, even if not widely tolerated, throughout recorded history. But that's just par for the course with trying to oppose same-sex marriage. Just to resort to lies and half truths to pretend to have a point.

And why do you think you can say this and impose your experiments on the rest of society ----> leftest arrogance

While feeling just fine imposing your religious views on everybody else. Go ahead, cry about being oppressed.

Leftest elitism and arrogance is based on nothing beyond pure arrogance. Leftests feel they are right for the simple fact they think it and you will demonized anyoone who simply disagrees with you. This thread is a prime example. Conservatives rely on history, philosophy, the Bible, and human nature as a basis of their beliefs, the left disregard all of these with arrogant arguments of “tolerance” , feelings of self importance and irrelevant claims of "progress". Leftest arrogance is merely a cloak intended to end debate from those you disagree with, while trying to change culture, using nothing more than feeling and opinions.

It's not that we're demonizing you. You're doing that just fine on your own with your own overweening sense of arrogance that only your way can possibly be the right way and nobody should dare challenge you. And quit relying on the bible. It's a badly translated piece of a two thousand year old book. You're not even using the whole thing when you refer to it. And you use double standards when referring to the bit you do use. Can't let gays marry, that'd be horrible. But you also acknowledge that slavery is no longer condoned, or that rape victims shouldn't be forced to marry their rapists. You can't just use one part and throw out the rest. It's just more boring and predictable hypocrisy from people clinging to the past.

I do believe that gays were born that way, made by God. But that doesn't make them normal any more than someone born with no arms, or with an IQ of 30 could be considered normal. That is to say everyone should strive to improve themselves and overcome their shortcomings as best they can. I've met a guy with no arms who plays trombone, I've recently seen an article about another guy with no arms who just qualified for the olympic archery team, they don't let their abnormalities stop them from becoming as nomal as possible and excelling. Hey, I was born with crappy eyesight, but I don't walk around with 20/200 vision. Remember there is no right to marriage or to even have any personal relationships. You cannot force anyone to like or love you.

Remember, gays are fine, they're just on par with retards and cripples.

And Grim, you seem to be trying to make some case that arguments against same sex marriage based on religious belief are irrelevant. Anyones belief against gay marriage based on religious belief has an equal weight as one that is not. Relativity of belief holds for everyone with a position on same sex marriage, even if it is based just on your feelings and opinions.

They are irrelevant because this country was based on freedom of religion. Which means no religion gets to take control of the laws of this country. Which means same-sex bans should be declared unconstitutional. We should not be banning consenting adults from marrying each other just because of the shape of their bodies. You might as well be arguing against interracial marriages since you're using the same logic.

[Timster]

I don't see any where that expanding the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples somehow rejects the concept that different sex couples can be married.

Culture evolves, Lib. We don't speak the same language we spoke 300 years ago. We don't dress the same way as we did 300 years ago. We don't hold slaves. That doesn't mean what happened before was stupid -- and if you think that's the point here, you're completely missing it.

Virtually every society in recorded history has defined marriage as being between man and woman. Heterosexual relationships are considered, "normal" in these societies while homosexual relationships are considered abnormal, which they obviously are being only 3% of the population. I have no problem with gays personally as people, my 2 best freinds in high school were gay as is my sister. But normalizing their behaivors just to allow them to feel normal in society is not best for society as a whole. And you can have no argument to the contrary, same sex marriage did not exist anywhere in the world until about 10 years ago, therefore any evidence on it's effect on society is inconsequential, you have no evidence. All you're saying is let's change the institution that's been around for all of recorded history, in order to try something that's never been done before.

And why do you think you can say this and impose your experiments on the rest of society ----> leftest arrogance

Leftest elitism and arrogance is based on nothing beyond pure arrogance. Leftests feel they are right for the simple fact they think it and you will demonized anyoone who simply disagrees with you. This thread is a prime example. Conservatives rely on history, philosophy, the Bible, and human nature as a basis of their beliefs, the left disregard all of these with arrogant arguments of “tolerance” , feelings of self importance and irrelevant claims of "progress". Leftest arrogance is merely a cloak intended to end debate from those you disagree with, while trying to change culture, using nothing more than feeling and opinions.

I do believe that gays were born that way, made by God. But that doesn't make them normal any more than someone born with no arms, or with an IQ of 30 could be considered normal. That is to say everyone should strive to improve themselves and overcome their shortcomings as best they can. I've met a guy with no arms who plays trombone, I've recently seen an article about another guy with no arms who just qualified for the olympic archery team, they don't let their abnormalities stop them from becoming as nomal as possible and excelling. Hey, I was born with crappy eyesight, but I don't walk around with 20/200 vision. Remember there is no right to marriage or to even have any personal relationships. You cannot force anyone to like or love you.

And Grim, you seem to be trying to make some case that arguments against same sex marriage based on religious belief are irrelevant. Anyones belief against gay marriage based on religious belief has an equal weight as one that is not. Relativity of belief holds for everyone with a position on same sex marriage, even if it is based just on your feelings and opinions.

And you Also speak with the authority invested in you by generations of ignorance Lib1.

They are irrelevant because this country was based on freedom of religion. Which means no religion gets to take control of the laws of this country. Which means same-sex bans should be declared unconstitutional. We should not be banning consenting adults from marrying each other just because of the shape of their bodies. You might as well be arguing against interracial marriages since you're using the same logic.

PRECISELY!

Still waiting on a rational argument that same gender marriage "devalues" traditional marriage.

I believe in same gender marriage. Your "moral" value system should not dictate a person's personal decision on whom and how to give and receive love. Not to mention the gross inequities of money, tax and visitation benefits.

Besides, I believe that they should have to suffer just like the rest of us...

[Liberty1]

You say you have no problem with gays, while at the same time calling them out for being "abnormal". Not exactly making a good argument there.

My eyesight is abnormal, their sexual diviation is abnormal, no reason to hold that against either of us. But you cannot make their deviation any more normal just by declaring it so, than you can with my eyesight.

Same-sex marriages have existed, even if not widely tolerated, throughout recorded history.

Prove it, show me where this has ever been considered normal.

While feeling just fine imposing your religious views on everybody else. Go ahead, cry about being oppressed.

I've actually said nothing about religion, other than those people who hold a belief because of it have just as valid an opinion as you.

It's not that we're demonizing you. You're doing that just fine on your own with your own overweening sense of arrogance that only your way can possibly be the right way and nobody should dare challenge you

No, I am presenting logical arguments, you are throwing a temper tantrum.

Remember, gays are fine, they're just on par with retards and cripples.

And yet you provide no argument to the contrary other than, because I said so.

They are irrelevant because this country was based on freedom of religion. Which means no religion gets to take control of the laws of this country. Which means same-sex bans should be declared unconstitutional. We should not be banning consenting adults from marrying each other just because of the shape of their bodies. You might as well be arguing against interracial marriages since you're using the same logic.

Again this hyperfocus on religion. What makes you think all of histories definition of marriage is based on religion. Regarless, the US Contitution keeps the government out of religion, not religion out of government. I believe you are from the UK so I'll excuse your ignorance of it.

Gays have as much of a "right" to marry as anyone else, just not to each other.

[Timster]

Gays have as much of a "right" to marry as anyone else, just not to each other.

I rest my case. Ignorance. Or is that just willful obtuseness?

[Grim Reaper]

My eyesight is abnormal, their sexual diviation is abnormal, no reason to hold that against either of us. But you cannot make their deviation any more normal just by declaring it so, than you can with my eyesight.

You say their deviation is abnormal without any proof of it.

Prove it, show me where this has ever been considered normal.

Lazy was my second guess and you have matched it.

You have access to the internet. You are wholly to blame for your own laziness. Try using your full abilities for once instead of hiding scared in a corner.

But anyway, Wikipedia is as good as any place to start from. And if you go off about how Wikipedia isn't really accurate I'll know that you're simply not interested in learning about the history of your race beyond the narrow focus you're trying to maintain.

I've actually said nothing about religion, other than those people who hold a belief because of it have just as valid an opinion as you.

An opinion yes, but when same-sex marriages are outlawed, that goes far and beyond mere opinion.

No, I am presenting logical arguments, you are throwing a temper tantrum.

You're ranting and raving. Don't be angry because I'm calling you out for your arrogance.

And yet you provide no argument to the contrary other than, because I said so.

While you provide no evidence of your own. Hypocrite.

There's nothing abnormal about being gay. It's existed in humanity for countless millenia. It exists in the animal kingdom across dozens of species. Only in humanity have a select few decided that it's abnormal.

Again this hyperfocus on religion. What makes you think all of histories definition of marriage is based on religion. Regarless, the US Contitution keeps the government out of religion, not religion out of government. I believe you are from the UK so I'll excuse your ignorance of it.

It's supposed to go both ways. That's the whole point of it. So I'll excuse your ignorance for something you don't want to believe to be true.

Gays have as much of a "right" to marry as anyone else, just not to each other.

Which is the same as no right at all.

[Sue U]

I have no problem with gays personally as people, my 2 best freinds in high school were gay as is my sister. But normalizing their behaivors just to allow them to feel normal in society is not best for society as a whole.

So gays shouldn't be allowed to "feel normal"? They shouldn't be permitted to participate in society as equals? They shoud be denied the benefit of generally applicable laws because of an immutable personal characteristic?

Remember there is no right to marriage or to even have any personal relationships.

You either do not know what you are talking about or you are confusing two separate things. The point is that, in fact, the government cannot tell you who you can and can't have personal relationships with. (There's that whole constituional thing about "freedom of association" and "personal liberty.") And when it comes to personal relationships, there is quite definitely a right to marriage. See, e.g., Loving v. Virginia.

And Grim, you seem to be trying to make some case that arguments against same sex marriage based on religious belief are irrelevant. Anyones belief against gay marriage based on religious belief has an equal weight as one that is not.

No, it doesn't. We live in a society where church is separated from state and religious beliefs are not an appropriate basis for secular laws.

[Liberty1]

You say their deviation is abnormal without any proof of it.

Normal: approximately average in any psychological trait, as intelligence, personality, or emotional adjustment. the usual, average, or typical state, degree, form,

3% does not normal make.

But anyway, Wikipedia is as good as any place to start from.

Thanks for proving my point with your own source, a few minor examples in china and europe does not constitute "throughout history"

An opinion yes, but when same-sex marriages are outlawed, that goes far and beyond mere opinion.

They have not been outlawed, they've not been sanctioned. Nice how you try to twist the meaning.

You're ranting and raving.

No not really, calm, cool, and collected. Perhaps my consise wrting doesn't come off that way.

There's nothing abnormal about being gay. It's existed in humanity for countless millenia. It exists in the animal kingdom across dozens of species. Only in humanity have a select few decided that it's abnormal.

Abnormalities exist in many ways and in all species.

Which is the same as no right at all.

I'll admit it, that comment was just a logical poke at you.

So gays shouldn't be allowed to "feel normal"?

I didn't know being gay was just a feeling. Regardless, I pity anyone who needs to be married to feel normal, but especially the person thay might be married to.

They shouldn't be permitted to participate in society as equals? They shoud be denied the benefit of generally applicable laws because of an immutable personal characteristic?

Didn't say that, what would marriage have to do with that. Unmarried people aren't equal with married people?

The point is that, in fact, the government cannot tell you who you can and can't have personal relationships with. (There's that whole constituional thing about "freedom of association" and "personal liberty.") .

True, but "liberty rights" (as opposed to business rights) can only be exercised by an individual. You cannot excercise a right to marriage as an individual, as you could rights of religion, speech, press, assembly. Marriage requires a second persons involvement, assembly allows another persons involvement.

No, it doesn't. We live in a society where church is separated from state and religious beliefs are not an appropriate basis for secular laws

Didn't say they are required to be the basis, but there is nothing preventing them from being the basis. Seems "appropriateness" is a pretty weak legal term, and I'm just a dumb engineer.

[Grim Reaper]

Normal: approximately average in any psychological trait, as intelligence, personality, or emotional adjustment. the usual, average, or typical state, degree, form,

3% does not normal make.

10% of the population is left handed. That doesn't mean that we're abnormal. That means you're using the wrong word to describe someone who's not the same as you.

13% of the US are African-Americans. That doesn't make them abnormal.

Heck, only 1% of the US are Native Americans, and again, that doesn't make them abnormal.

Thanks for proving my point with your own source, a few minor examples in china and europe does not constitute "throughout history"

My bad. Some of the largest empires in history don't count. I'll keep that in mind. But it does prove that it happened and that you lied, knowingly or unknowingly, that it had never happened.

They have not been outlawed, they've not been sanctioned. Nice how you try to twist the meaning.

Not being allowed = outlawed. You're just trying to use a pretty word to cover an ugly fact.

No not really, calm, cool, and collected. Perhaps my consise wrting doesn't come off that way.

Your writing is arrogant, small-minded, and hateful.

Abnormalities exist in many ways and in all species.

There's no such thing as "normal" then, because everything can be considered abnormal.

I'll admit it, that comment was just a logical poke at you.

Which is just extra proof that you don't have a real argument.

I didn't know being gay was just a feeling. Regardless, I pity anyone who needs to be married to feel normal, but especially the person thay might be married to.

Now you're being deliberately obtuse. Being gay isn't a feeling. Being oppressed because you're gay can make you feel not welcome. And being allowed to marry is only part of it. Being recognized fully as a human being, no matter your sexual orientation, is what is important. You, and people like you, would prefer that gays be forever second class citizens.

Didn't say that, what would marriage have to do with that. Unmarried people aren't equal with married people?

Didn't say it, but you meant it. And no, unmarried people aren't equal. Being married carries a contractual agreement that is recognized by the government and used for a variety of services. A man married to a woman receives certain benefits that two people living together won't get.

True, but "liberty rights" (as opposed to business rights) can only be exercised by an individual. You cannot excercise a right to marriage as an individual, as you could rights of religion, speech, press, assembly. Marriage requires a second persons involvement, assembly allows another persons involvement.

And by preventing an individual from marrying another, you trample upon the rights of both individuals.

Didn't say they are required to be the basis, but there is nothing preventing them from being the basis. Seems "appropriateness" is a pretty weak legal term, and I'm just a dumb engineer.

The constitution prevents them from being the basis. Freedom of religion means that no religion's laws should be used as federal or state law. Using a religious law as the basis for a federal or state law is condoning that religion and giving it credence over others.

[Andrew D]

It is the institution of MARRIAGE (as defined by each State, respectively) which is being defended.

No, it is not. If that were the case, then the federal rule would be to recognize as valid any marriage recognized as valid in the State(s) where the parties to that marriage reside.

But that is not the federal rule. The federal rule -- the federal Defense of Instutionalized Bigotry Act -- is exactly the opposite of States' rights.

The surviving spouse of a same-sex marriage has no right to Social Security survivor's benefits. That is true even though the same-sex marriage is recognized as valid in the State where the same-sex spouses resided (and the survivor still resides) throughout their married lives. And even though the federal government has been perfectly happy to take Social Security (FICA) taxes out of the deceased spouse's paychecks for decades.

Where are the States' rights in that?

[Scooter]

[And Scoot, the FFACC also applies to public acts and records -- so a marriage certificate valid in Massachusetts should be valid in, say, Utah, by virtue of the FFACC.

My understanding is that states have always retained the power to refuse to recognize out-of-state marriages on public policy grounds. Certainly out-of-state interracial marriages were not recognized in states that prohibited them. And when those prohibitions were invalidated by Loving v. Virginia, it was on the basis of the 14th Amendment. If FFAC governed marriage contracts, why not just say so? The complete absence of any mention of FFAC in that ruling would suggest that the question was not even considered debatable.

[Long Run]

From Wikipedia (tifwiw):

Social history of the law
At the time of passage, it was expected that Hawaii (and possibly other states) would soon legalize same-sex marriage, whether by legislation or judicial interpretation of either the state or federal constitution. Opponents of such recognition feared—and many proponents hoped—that the other states would then be required to recognize such marriages under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution.

* * *

[edit] EffectsDOMA Section 2, according to a journal article by Mark Strasser, relieves states of a constitutional obligation to enforce judicial custody, alimony or other orders made in other states that involve recognition of same-sex marriages. In his opinion, states already had the right to refuse recognition of marriages to local residents who traveled to and married in other states for the purpose of evading local laws. Less clear, however, are the cases of residents of one state who marry and move to another state or of non-residents who asserted rights in a local court. It is unclear whether DOMA was intended to address such cases, whether states already had the power to refuse recognition in these cases before the enactment of DOMA, and whether the U.S. Constitution allows Congress to modify such state authority.[8]

DOMA's Section 3 prevents the federal government from recognizing the validity of same-sex marriages. The General Accounting Office issued a report in 1997 identifying "1,049 federal statutory provisions classified to the United States Code in which benefits, rights, and privileges are contingent on marital status or in which marital status is a factor".[9] In updating its report in 2004, the GAO found that this number had risen to 1,138 as of December 31, 2003.[10] In the case of a bi-national same-sex couple, DOMA's Section 3 has prevented one spouse from sponsoring the other for a Green Card.[11] Following some uncertainty after the Obama Administration determined that Section 3 is unconstitutional, the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) reaffirmed its policy of denying such applications.[12] With respect to obtaining a visitor's visa, USCIS rules treat bi-national same-sex spouses the same as bi-national unmarried partners of different sexes under the classification "cohabiting partners".[13]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

[Grim Reaper]

The surviving spouse of a same-sex marriage has no right to Social Security survivor's benefits. That is true even though the same-sex marriage is recognized as valid in the State where the same-sex spouses resided (and the survivor still resides) throughout their married lives. And even though the federal government has been perfectly happy to take Social Security (FICA) taxes out of the deceased spouse's paychecks for decades.

There's a new problem with the military now that DADT is out of the window. A same-sex couple won't receive the same benefits as a married couple. Which means limited access to on post housing, limited access to off-post housing, no access to medical benefits. increased fees when moving between duty stations, and if both individuals are in the military, no guarantee that they'll be stationed to the same post, and so on and so forth.

These laws have a negative impact on the quality of living for a lot of people, including those who would lay down their lives to protect the very people who would deny them their rights.

[Scooter]

EffectsDOMA Section 2, according to a journal article by Mark Strasser, relieves states of a constitutional obligation to enforce judicial custody, alimony or other orders made in other states that involve recognition of same-sex marriages. In his opinion, states already had the right to refuse recognition of marriages to local residents who traveled to and married in other states for the purpose of evading local laws. Less clear, however, are the cases of residents of one state who marry and move to another state or of non-residents who asserted rights in a local court. It is unclear whether DOMA was intended to address such cases, whether states already had the power to refuse recognition in these cases before the enactment of DOMA, and whether the U.S. Constitution allows Congress to modify such state authority.[8]

Someone at Wikipedia is doing some editorializing. Strasser does not raise any such doubts. Besides which, the sentence beginning "in his opinion" is a distortion of what he said in a way that limits its full meaning.

[dgs49]

Hate to bring up the same old points, but "spousal benefits" arose historically because of the traditional roles of man and wife: Man earns the money, wife nurtures the kids and keeps up the household. Because the wife held, in effect, a full-time, non-compensated position in the home, she was not readily able to purchase health benefits or to get them from her employer. This does NOT apply to gay couples, who biologically cannot reproduce. If one does not work outside the home, it is entirely a matter of choice.

NObody is talking about "prohibiting" gays from getting married. They never have been able to get married, and are now demanding something that is unprecedented.

And anyone who does not perceive that anal intercourse between two males is "abnormal" must have been asleep in biology class. Or is simply an idiot.

Isn't it amazing that with gays & lesbians constituting about 2-2.5% of the population, and only a small fraction of them having any interest in entering into long-term monogamous relationships, the whole fucking country is in an uproar about this issue.

Honestly, WGAS?

[Grim Reaper]

Hate to bring up the same old points, but "spousal benefits" arose historically because of the traditional roles of man and wife: Man earns the money, wife nurtures the kids and keeps up the household. Because the wife held, in effect, a full-time, non-compensated position in the home, she was not readily able to purchase health benefits or to get them from her employer. This does NOT apply to gay couples, who biologically cannot reproduce. If one does not work outside the home, it is entirely a matter of choice.

Except that's no longer the case, but is still being used today. People still get these benefits even if they never have children.

Oh, and let's use some more examples:

Couple A: Male is sterile, female is fertile. They use a donor program to have a child.

Couple B: Two females in a same-sex relationship. They use a donor program to have a child.

Why should one couple be treated differently despite the child being born the exact same way in both cases? Oh right, because you're a hateful homophobic bigot who despises people who are different from him.

NObody is talking about "prohibiting" gays from getting married. They never have been able to get married, and are now demanding something that is unprecedented.

More doublespeak. If you don't allow someone to do something, that means that you are prohibiting them from doing something. The fact that same-sex marriage was never allowed in the US means that it was prohibited all that time.

Your same logic would have kept black people in chains and women unable to vote.

And anyone who does not perceive that anal intercourse between two males is "abnormal" must have been asleep in biology class. Or is simply an idiot.

Or is more of an adult than you and realizes that anal intercourse between two men is not really abnormal just because some people are small minded cowards.

Isn't it amazing that with gays & lesbians constituting about 2-2.5% of the population, and only a small fraction of them having any interest in entering into long-term monogamous relationships, the whole fucking country is in an uproar about this issue.

Remember, if you belong to a very small percentage, that means you shouldn't expect to have any rights. One of the main functions of a government is to protect against the tyranny of the majority.

Honestly, WGAS?

You, apparently, give quite a shit about this issue.

[Andrew D]

Shhh!

Don't pester him.

He's busy jerking off to all-female porn.