What is Digg?324 Comments
- ChuckIT, on 10/11/2007, -6/+115sweet, gays now have the right to be unhappy.
- fantasmacanino, on 10/11/2007, -20/+97What? The world is making sense now?
This should have come sooner. Marriage is a human right, not a heterosexual privilege. - mickhead, on 10/11/2007, -7/+42Fabulous!
- bodycoach2, on 10/11/2007, -2/+31As a heterosexual male, I do not like the idea of the government being involved in my marriage. As long as my human and civil rights are not violated by someone else behavior, it's not my business what other people choose to do, especially in the privacy of their own home. Supporting a "ban" on homosexual unions, marriages, or any other fake legal term is akin to saying, "Dear government, Please have dominion over my relationship with my spouse. Thank you for considering this police state action."
Government should be involved in NO marriages. - Waiting2awake, on 10/11/2007, -7/+33 Very good. A step in the right direction. I can't say I understand them, but they deserve every single right everyone else has.
Good job NY State.
Here in Toronto, it is Pride week, so there are more rainbows around Toronto right now.... - Jambi, on 10/11/2007, -9/+32Here's a question for those of you supporting gay marriage on the basis of the "consenting adults" argument; what's your stance on polygamy? (seeing as one would assume that the same line of reasoning seems to work in that case) And for the record, I'm for both.
- jbehan, on 10/11/2007, -3/+26Polygamy? Ugh. One wife is enough, thank you very much.
- somnambualist, on 10/11/2007, -3/+23I agree. If it's consentual, I can't fathom why people would oppose it other than whackadoo religious nonsense.
Kids and animals are different, they lack the ability to consent. They also lack the ability to hold property which is the only point of marriage from a governmental point of view. - Ronnie, on 10/11/2007, -3/+23"However, the bill is not expected to make it pass the Republican-controlled Senate."
Why they gotta hate? - orlyfactor, on 10/11/2007, -1/+19Like, who gives a flying rat's ass who someone sleeps with, as long as they're not hurting anyone. Is your life THAT uneventful that you need to stick your nose into other people's business? What's the real reason, you just don't feel comfortable enough seeing 2 dudes kiss (everyone knows no one hates lesbian kisses)? Fess up, religion is a reason used when there's other things at play.
- nimski, on 10/11/2007, -10/+27'Consenting adult' is the proper term for you fundies.
- pintomp3, on 10/11/2007, -1/+16wrong kind of pussy.
- SmokedL, on 10/11/2007, -2/+16I think the point is that if the government grants privileges to those that enter into marriage then sexual orientation should be entirely irrelevant when you enter into marriage. Privileges granted by the state should not be be restricted to one sex, skin color, religious belief, or sexual orientation.
- Detritus, on 10/11/2007, -1/+15I'm for both too. (I got married to my husband up in B.C. a year ago this month!) My eyes about bug out of their skull at the thought of anyone so preoccupied with how other people are living their lives that they think we need some legislation on how consenting adults behave while consenting with one another.
Seatbelt laws and Helmet laws make sense because accidents can cost the tax payer in the case of uninsured (1/3rd of working Americans), but I think we can cover any kind of unforeseen costs steming from rampant polygamy accidents. - FlashStash, on 10/11/2007, -1/+14For those of you that want gay marriage to be given a public vote, do you feel that laws preventing different races from marrying should have been help up to a public vote? Because, during that time, public opinion was against allowing different races to marry, but the courts overturned those laws in opposition to public opinion...was that not okay?
This is why we don't allow minority rights to be voted upon by the majority...the government is supposed to protect the rights of the minority, not rule based upon the will of the majority. - MrMetal, on 10/11/2007, -5/+18It's about damn time. Hopefully more states will follow.
- surf314, on 10/11/2007, -1/+13I think you mean irony
- RealityMonster, on 10/11/2007, -4/+16I support polyamory, the more permissive superset of polygamy. Polygamy is one man with many wives, which is sort of inherently unfair.
What's the big problem with multiple partner relationships anyway? You have more parents that are willing to raise a child and costs per person go down. Where I live, you practically need 3 normal people to buy a house anyway. :P - glasnostic, on 10/11/2007, -2/+13I would love to see a fundamentalist explain their position on being a Jew or Moslem in this country.
Its clear that Christianity says that being a Jew or Moslems means you are condemned to hell since not believing in Christ is the only unforgivable sin.
So, idiot conservative, where is your condemnation of Jews, where is your condemnation of Hindus? When are you going to picket the local Buddhist Temple and claim that non Christians deserve no rights in America?
Come on you ***** pussys.. put your Jesus where your mouth is. - jthodges, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12I agree. If all the government references to 'marriage' were changed to 'civil union' or something similar, and a religious marriage was one way to get a civil union, it seems like this would not be such a hot issue.
- Jambi, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11Leftist ***** it may or may not be, but what do you have against gay marriage/civil unions/etc? Is it a religious objection? If so, what the hell does that have to do with marriage in this country, which is sanctioned by the federal government? I say religion ought to butt out of this argument unless it comes to gays wanting to get married in churches/temples/etc whose congregations or larger denomination might be against the practice, in which case it becomes a case of the government meddling with religion. But what we have now is religion meddling in what ought to be a purely secular affair.
- ebarras, on 10/11/2007, -6/+16Is it me, or should this not be such a big deal? Marriage was started by religion, is useless, and adds one metric ***** of financial liability to a relationship.
- glasnostic, on 10/11/2007, -2/+12Exactly. Marriage isn't a human right. Not being discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation is.
- RonaldLovegood, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9As long as the relationship consists of consenting adult human beings, anything should be legally allowed. Why? Because not only does people have a right to do whatever they want (in the context of consensual relationships), but they shouldn't need to explain themselves to a legal system when no one is doing anything wrong to anyone. This goes for gays, lesbians, polygamous, etc.
- Homerr, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10Watch out straight homophobes, this means you're now at risk of turning gay!
/sarcasm
/feels need to be obvious about sarcasm - UKsHaDoW, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9Your the one that sounds cold hearted TBH
- Waiting2awake, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9 My you are a live one aren't you? You know what else is sick and perverse? Hatred..Wishing death ...
You know this is what is known as a freeright - which means them having the right costs nothing to you. So essentially, since it costs nothing to you for them to be equal, and yet you don't want them to have the right - then that means you are trying to control their behaviour because you don't like it....
Do I need to explain to you why that is so wrong, and why even if you disagree with homosexuality you almost have to be for equality? - timothybryce, on 10/11/2007, -12/+20"Marriage is a human right"
I don't particularly care about gay marriage either way, but a "human right?" Please. What would that be, the right to have a partnership with another person that is recognized by the government and given certain tax benefits?
You may be in favor of giving gay people the right to marry but it really has nothing to do with human rights. - Quiwi, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7"Hikind said before the Assembly, "There are certain things that do not change for me unless God sends a message to me," - and then thunder sounded, causing everyone to laugh."
(still voted against though) - thcobbs, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8"Marriage" is religious in nature. I think it's an error in judgment to use a religions term such as that as a legal definition. The legal stance should be something akin to a "civil union", it's just the ceremony that's different.
- morgan1976, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7I think I'm not going to recognize marriage anymore. Since it's granted by the government, only the government should have to recognize it. I'll just ask all married couples how their "friends" are. It's so ***** depressing when I'm asked about my "friend." "How's your "friend?" My "friend" and I have been together longer than any heterosexual couple I know, and that includes my own parents. So, if people don't want to recognize my relationship, why should I recognize theirs?
- BillOReilly08, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7Yes, I agree that it is sickening that it has taken this long as well.
- stonebear, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8And perhaps too much, in some cases.
- luther70, on 10/11/2007, -0/+740 years ago the judicial activists on the supreme court ruled that the Virgina law that made Marriage between Whites and Blacks unconstitutional.
- ShootTheCore, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8You Sir, are a moron
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9I support polygamy, consent can happen between more than just two parties. = )
I'll never get married, but if you want to, why the ***** not? Who really gives a *****? Just let them ***** marry. - Waiting2awake, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9cause they don't know better....
- LogicBomB, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9Great news. I'm fairly certain It's legal everywhere in Canada already and the more states that push for it the better. It's very simply equal rights.
- lpmiller, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7Yes, those bastard leftist, wanting to treat people equally!
- Hetman, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6What is your rational for being agianst gay marriage then?
- Jambi, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7Ms. Coulter, if you're going to post here, I suggest you educate yourself on the difference between humans and other animals, and why the term "consenting adults" is so key to debates on such issues. Now please crawl back into whatever hole you came from, when we need a comment on Paris Hilton being released from jail, or a Hillary Clinton lesbian sex scandal, we'll give you a call.
-Thanks - thebellmaster1x, on 10/11/2007, -9/+15Thank God.
(no pun intended) - zweben, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6lol @ username.
- Jade10145, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8Ok so honestly, what the ***** is the big issue with gay marraige, who cares if they are able to get married, let them get married! I do not understand the argument by anti gay marriage advocates that if gay people are allowed to get married it will cheapen the ideal of marriage. I say to them, if your marraige is good then why don't you just focus on that. Marraige is just a label, and if your marriage is good then why push your ideal of marriage on other people, what do you care? Gay people marrying will not cheapen the vows that you took..
On a side note, don't we the American people have other things to worry about like oh i dont know the Iraq war, why do we focus on issues like gay marraige, I mean really is it really that important that we prevent gay people from getting married - Waiting2awake, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6 Yepper, thats me... ohh wait, do you have to be an atheist to be for equality for all people regardless of colour, sex, creed, religion?
- MaximumPig, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6all rights are social constructs.
- m0d3s7m1k3, on 10/11/2007, -5/+11Congrats! Glad to see one state take a foot forward in a direction the people want.
- thelostemperor, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Where in the Law does it say that adopting a "depraved lifestyle" results in forfeiture of Rights?
- brufleth, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7You sir or madam are full of it.
There was no "non vote" in Mass. The question of an amendment banning gay marriage was raised (probably by some crazy fundamentalist) and the politicians knowing that such a stupid proposal would be a waste of time and money struck it down. I live in Mass and have most of my life. Such a vote would have been a massive waste of time and money. I don't know of a single person here who is or was upset about it. In fact, I don't know of a single person here who even heard about it because it was such a non issue. If we were forced to vote on every single piece of garbage that passes through the legislature we'd spend all our time at voting stations.
Who "gloated?" I didn't see anyone gloating. Maybe some interest group pointed out it would have passed. They're right. Either way they're allowed to say whatever they want.
After reading your comment again maybe you're referring to the initial legislature protecting the right of same sex couples to marry. If so you're still misinterpreting the way our government is supposed to work. The rights of the minority are not supposed to be controlled by the majority. So even if a direct vote against gay marriage would have passed (doubtful) it would have been illegal. Similar motions were passed and later repealed banning interracial marriages. - stonebear, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Marriage is not the same thing as sex. Marriage is a social institution, and animals cannot function in human society, just as inanimate objects cannot. Of course, in a few years machines will be part of human society, and we will be having sex with them as well. I tell you; this is really just a tempest in a teapot in comparison to what will go down with that.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 316 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is