ForumsWEPRNew Hampshire Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage

119 21992
Toadlord
offline
Toadlord
497 posts
Shepherd

New Hampshire recently joined Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, and Vermont in legalizing same-sex marriage.

This is obviously a big victory for gay and lesbian advocates.

Maine is also looking good in the fight for same-sex marriage, and may make it legal as soon as next week.

There is also a group called Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, a group of lawyers who led the legal fight for same-sex marriage in Massachusetts and Connecticut, who have set a target of bringing same-sex marriage to all New England states by 2012. Maine could make them only one away from their goal.

What do you think? Do you think they will reach their goal?

How long until same-sex marriage is legalized throughout the whole country?

  • 119 Replies
Somers
offline
Somers
1,532 posts
Nomad

Was that seriously worth posting?

TSL3_needed
offline
TSL3_needed
5,579 posts
Nomad

**** you shut him down alt, also to TSL3 you're thinking of scruples as right and wrong.


What does scruples mean exactly?
Deth666
offline
Deth666
653 posts
Nomad

a sense of right and wrong like for example if i went around punching cancer children then people might say i have no scruples

SirLegendary
offline
SirLegendary
16,587 posts
Duke

thats just gay, more like even lesbian??????????? im clue less

Strop
offline
Strop
10,816 posts
Bard

He had a gay kid in our school once...kept trying to get weird with one of my friends...so me and a few others took him and beat him up until he admited he wasnt gay.


This is also known as a "hate crime", just letting you know. Ironically the kind of thing that will earn you a very loose anus in prison later in life.

what is wrong with a man liking a woman or a woman liking a man


Nothing...so my next question is WHY!? do you think this is relevant to laws regarding homosexual relations?

"both nature and nurture play a part in sexuality"


Suitably fluffy statement- some would like to argue that it is one's orientation that is defined by nature and merely one's expression of said orientation is nurture.

Strangely enough, for my part, I'm not concerned about this.
fear_the_ibex
offline
fear_the_ibex
84 posts
Nomad

1st. There is no state of normalcy; therefore, neither homosexuality OR heterosexuality would make sense by your logic. (I use that word apprehensively in this case.)

The problem with that logic is that you stated that there is "no state of normalcy" and then you make the deduction, but is that first statement really true? I quote from webster's dictionary
Normal-according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle b: conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern
In this case the regular pattern is that of billions of people, thus there is a norm of society. Just like we don;t consider psychopath killers to be normal.


2nd. By that thinking, any hetero couple that marries but does not have children would be just as bad. Marriage isn't about children, it's about union and federal rights. Also, by that thinking, the missed opportunity would also apply to every masturbation and missed period ever, because it is denying children when children could be had.

If you look at the amount of married couples, of the norm, a good percentage of the majority of couples' lives are devoted to children. As much as we might not like to think about it, the purpose of every species on this planet is to survive and propagate. As for masturbation, the child is not conceived, in my opinion (based on science) until the sperm makes contact with the egg, but that is an entirely different topic if you really want to deviate.

3rd. Homosexuality is not entirely a choice. Homosexuality is not entirely innate. I posted a link in this thread (actual evidence! Something very rare here) to an article by the American Psychological Association, detailing that 'both nature and nurture play a part in sexuality.'

Indeed I did read some of that web page, and I remember reading the conclusion that they think it is both nature and nurture, as you stated. But to be honest, we, as human beings, still have a lot more to understand about our own magnificent brains. The reason that I don't think it is in the genes is because if you look at our childhoods and understand all that we have been through, then it is apparent where many instances influenced the person we are today. If you raise a child and keep telling them that homosexuality is the only way to live, well, then that child will live under that exact belief. All of the gay people that I have seen have all had some sort of previous experience, more than likely something to do with the parents.

Nothing...so my next question is WHY!? do you think this is relevant to laws regarding homosexual relations?

Maybe not directly, but I am lost as to understanding of why people should choose to live this way.

And as for the the argument that it is the freedom of the gays to have these rights, what about the majority of people who are under the norm. Does their say not count? Perhaps they don't want to have to see men kissing each another or the same with women.

**** you shut him down alt, also to TSL3 you're thinking of scruples as right and wrong.

If you don't have anything relevant to this topic, Kyouzou, then I suggest you leave this thread. This topic requires you put your thoughts together in a [/b]constructive[b] way, gl.
thisisnotanalt
offline
thisisnotanalt
9,821 posts
Farmer

The problem with that logic is that you stated that there is "no state of normalcy" and then you make the deduction, but is that first statement really true? I quote from webster's dictionary


I said normalcy and you defined normal. There is a distinction, because normal and norm relate to a perceived state, whereas normalcy is an actual. Besides, that still isn't a valid point on your part, because denying 1,138 federal rights to a group of people because they are not 'normal' is discrimination. It's cruel, heartless, and wrong to deny rights from people because they are a minority-no matter how you try to distort that, homosexuals are a minority in the same vein as African Americans, and denying rights from homosexuals is the same a denying rights from African Americans.
-------------
If you look at the amount of married couples, of the norm, a good percentage of the majority of couples' lives are devoted to children. As much as we might not like to think about it, the purpose of every species on this planet is to survive and propagate. As for masturbation, the child is not conceived, in my opinion (based on science) until the sperm makes contact with the egg, but that is an entirely different topic if you really want to deviate.


Tch. First of all, married couples aren't the norm, and the norm is a perceived state and not an actual one. Second, it doesn't matter if it is our purpose to reproduce, because there are already so many couples that do, 10% of the population deviating from that already irregular trend would not make a difference. Also,there is already an abortion thread
-----------
Maybe not directly, but I am lost as to understanding of why people should choose to live this way.

And as for the the argument that it is the freedom of the gays to have these rights, what about the majority of people who are under the norm. Does their say not count? Perhaps they don't want to have to see men kissing each another or the same with women.


1st. Because homosexuality is not a choice.
2nd. They don't have to see that, and there are already some laws against contact like that in public for both sexualities-and that also reminds me of a quest in Fallout 3 where you can either detonate a nuke in the middle of a town to wipe it out (because the residents of the tower that see it think that it ruins the view) or disarm it for good. Besides, the very denial of marriage to homosexuals denies them 1,138 federal rights, which is unjustifiable in a country dedicated to freedom and the pursuit of happiness.
Xrunner
offline
Xrunner
443 posts
Nomad

I live in Vermont and I think it's awesome that same-sex marriages have been legalized.

fear_the_ibex
offline
fear_the_ibex
84 posts
Nomad

I said normalcy and you defined normal. There is a distinction, because normal and norm relate to a perceived state, whereas normalcy is an actual. Besides, that still isn't a valid point on your part, because denying 1,138 federal rights to a group of people because they are not 'normal' is discrimination. It's cruel, heartless, and wrong to deny rights from people because they are a minority-no matter how you try to distort that, homosexuals are a minority in the same vein as African Americans, and denying rights from homosexuals is the same a denying rights from African Americans.


Ok then, here is the definition from www.dictionary.com of normalcy:
quality or condition of being normal

Im now going to give you the definition of quality, and then condition, either way, normalcy is an actual. First quality:
an essential or distinctive characteristic, property, or attribute
characteristic, property, and attribute are all noun/adjectives, hence they exist. And now condition:
a particular mode of being of a person or thing; existing state
It clearly says that a condition is an actual.
Phew :O

There is a difference between physical aspects and 'moral'(beliefs) aspects. Im not differentiating them because they have looks that I don't like, I will never pick on a person based on their phenotypic(the result of a genotype) looks. I do not agree with this group of people's(gays) beliefs that it is right to marry someone of the same sex. Nor am I signaling them out based upon their rank in numbers, as I said in the previous sentence.


Tch. First of all, married couples aren't the norm, and the norm is a perceived state and not an actual one. Second, it doesn't matter if it is our purpose to reproduce, because there are already so many couples that do, 10% of the population deviating from that already irregular trend would not make a difference. Also,there is already an abortion thread

See above pile of words, there is such a thing as the norm, normal, or normalcy that is in existence.

1st. Because homosexuality is not a choice.
2nd. They don't have to see that, and there are already some laws against contact like that in public for both sexualities-and that also reminds me of a quest in Fallout 3 where you can either detonate a nuke in the middle of a town to wipe it out (because the residents of the tower that see it think that it ruins the view) or disarm it for good. Besides, the very denial of marriage to homosexuals denies them 1,138 federal rights, which is unjustifiable in a country dedicated to freedom and the pursuit of happiness.

OK, first of all I would like you to do some digging for me now please. I would like a source and a quote that you base the statement that
Because homosexuality is not a choice.
, I know you posted a link, but I cannot find it. Then I want you to find me another source and quote that shows what the 1,138 'civil' rights are.

Second of all the original intent of the phrase freedom and the pursuit of happiness were based upon choosing your own religion without oppression from the church, and the ability to live a life where you have the opportunity to obtain wealth through hard work. The judicial courts have even ruled as such: (from wikipedia)
Among these inalienable rights, as proclaimed in that great document, is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant the right to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give to them their highest enjoyment.


Man, I had better watch out, soon I'll be taking up a whole page O_o
thisisnotanalt
offline
thisisnotanalt
9,821 posts
Farmer

What I'm speaking (or. . .typing, I guess 0_o) of is not a reference to what is most common-as the state of normalcy you are mentioning is what I would consider a state of majority. I mean that in an empirical case, as long as there is at least one datapoint deviating from the rest, there is not 'normalcy' only majority.
---------

'civil'


Federal, not civil. Dfiference there.
--------
Among these inalienable rights, as proclaimed in that great document, is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant the right to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give to them their highest enjoyment.


That does not deal with religion. And gay marriage does not violate the equal rights of an other person (as long as the marriage is nonreligious) and so, it is Unconstitutional to not allow gay marriage.
---------
Here is thre lik to the site detailing the federal rights denied homosexual couples.

-----------

Homosexuality is not a choice.
FireflyIV
offline
FireflyIV
3,224 posts
Nomad

Hmm, I get a little bored of these threads, so I am going to post now, vent my frustration and then get the hell out, so here goes. (It may not be particularly coherent but hey).

--------------------------------------------------------------------

I would like to see one argument presented from the anti gay lobby that isn't based on a perception of morailty but on logic and reason. The bottom line is, everyone deserves equal rights, unless they as an individual have, do something that warrants them being stripped.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

As for the argument that homosexuality isn't natural:

The fabulous kingdom of gay animals
Bisexual species
Homosexual Activity Among Animals
Homosexual behaviours in animalsPDF

Read. Learn.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not totally discounting the effect of nurture, but here's why being gay, isn't as simple as 'a choice'.

Homosexuality: A Natural Cause?
Symmetry Of Homosexual Brain Resembles That Of Opposite Sex
Sound and Sexuality
Evidence that Homosexuality is Genetic

--------------------------------------------------------------------

For people who claim that homosexual rights are not seriously inhibited by the prohibition on marriage, here is a good article on the matter.

For the many homophobes on this thread, (not naming any names Ricador, TSL3_needed, GAGAMEN, Somers), who will claim I am using biased sources here are statistics released from the General Accounting Office in 1997, listing the 1,049 benefits and protections available to heterosexual married couples.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd like to sum up with a line from the Bob Dylan classic Hurricane: 'I couldn't help but be ashamed to live in a land where justice is a game'.

Deth666
offline
Deth666
653 posts
Nomad

homosexuality is very prevalent among mammals especially

fear_the_ibex
offline
fear_the_ibex
84 posts
Nomad

OMFG I clicked on your link and I forgot that I would lose my typing arghhhhh!!!!.
Sigh, here i go again, for the second time:

What I'm speaking (or. . .typing, I guess 0_o) of is not a reference to what is most common-as the state of normalcy you are mentioning is what I would consider a state of majority. I mean that in an empirical case, as long as there is at least one datapoint deviating from the rest, there is not 'normalcy' only majority.

Here is another definition from www.dictionary.com for normalcy:
being within certain limits that define the range of normal functioning

Thus there can be certain deviations from the majority and still be called the normalcy.

Among these inalienable rights, as proclaimed in that great document, is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant the right to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give to them their highest enjoyment.

That does not deal with religion. And gay marriage does not violate the equal rights of an other person (as long as the marriage is nonreligious) and so, it is Unconstitutional to not allow gay marriage.[quote]
The pilgrims came to the New World to escape prosecution of the English church, that can be found in my history books
----
As for your statement that
Unconstitutional to not allow gay marriage[quote], could you please point out where in the constitution that it supports your statement. here is a head start:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html

P.S. I'll post again after reading your sources
P.P.S. Im still waiting for that link and quote that shows those 1,138 federal rights.
fear_the_ibex
offline
fear_the_ibex
84 posts
Nomad

sorry for double post, seems i put the quotes in the wrong places >_<

Nokus
offline
Nokus
54 posts
Nomad

Personally, I think that this is a huge leap forward towards a better world. This is because w/ every new state that legalizes same-sex marriage, the further America is to getting rid of homophobia and w/ America fallows the world.

Showing 76-90 of 119