New York Passes Gay Marriage Legislation

[baph]

:emotawesomepm9: :emotawesomepm9:

[marf]

marriage is ridiculous

[skotosa]

So what were the reasons for not doing this?

[baph]

So what were the reasons for not doing this?

 

mormons

[triachus]

So what were the reasons for not doing this?

 

[Guest Mirezzi]

So what were the reasons for not doing this?

 

lol.

[Guest Adam]

lol

[YEK]

*awaits gay riots in Vancouver in support of this*

 

the gays can fight, watch yourself.

 

 

 

edit: it's usually more verbal, like : "that tie doesn't match your shirt"..

[Eggs]

*awaits gay riots in Vancouver in support of this*

 

the gays can fight, watch yourself.

 

 

 

edit: it's usually more verbal, like : "that tie doesn't match your shirt"..

 

well that's weird. today a gay guy helped me pick a tie and shirt for a wedding next Saturday. should've tipped him. he was nice.

[chenGOD]

*awaits gay riots in Vancouver in support of this*

 

the gays can fight, watch yourself.

 

 

 

edit: it's usually more verbal, like : "that tie doesn't match your shirt"..

 

hah the joke's on them - I don't wear ties!

[Braintree]

So what were the reasons for not doing this?

 

 

THEY'RE FUCKIN QUEER

 

That really is the sentiment in Boston, though. Everyone's cool with gay marriage, but they hate gays. It blows my mind.

[vertsk8er419]

marriage is ridiculous

[Rubin Farr]

George Takei for President

 

[Guest Al Hounos]

i'm all for gays getting married, adopting kids, being president, whatever, but what do you all think about gay couples having kids through surrogates/sperm donors? i find it pretty repulsive.

[Guest uptown devil]

i'm all for gays getting married, adopting kids, being president, whatever, but what do you all think about gay couples having kids through surrogates/sperm donors? i find it pretty repulsive.

as long as the kids are cared for properly what's the difference? do you just assume that every gay couple's house is some sort of evil sex dungeon?

[vertsk8er419]

i'm all for gays getting married, adopting kids, being president, whatever, but what do you all think about gay couples having kids through surrogates/sperm donors? i find it pretty repulsive.

as long as the kids are cared for properly what's the difference? do you just assume that every gay couple's house is some sort of evil sex dungeon?

i think he's alluding more to a 'stop having babies just for the hell of it' sort of thing, the over population aspects of it, and the fact of bringing more innocent souls into this sick culture.

[Guest uptown devil]

i'm all for gays getting married, adopting kids, being president, whatever, but what do you all think about gay couples having kids through surrogates/sperm donors? i find it pretty repulsive.

as long as the kids are cared for properly what's the difference? do you just assume that every gay couple's house is some sort of evil sex dungeon?

i think he's alluding more to a 'stop having babies just for the hell of it' sort of thing, the over population aspects of it, and the fact of bringing more innocent souls into this sick culture.

i think he was pretty specific.

[vertsk8er419]

i think you've misread him

[Guest uptown devil]

ahh yes, i see now he has adoption listed previously.. my apologies mr. h. however, i still don't see what's wrong with it. I'm sure gay people have the desire to have a connection to the child's genetics just like any other parent.

[Guest Al Hounos]

yeah, gay couples could really do the world a favor by adopting the unwanted products of failed hetero relationships. the least they can do is not add to an overcrowded world through artificial means.

 

and i understand wanting to raise a kid that carries your genes, but with gay couples it's only one of the partner's genes and some stranger's. defeats the whole purpose. just seems pointless and ego-driven.

 

i brought it up cos this silly broad was on the front page of NPR.org along wiht the gay marriage story.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/babyproject/2011/06/24/137255367/meet-the-mom-jolivette-mecenas

[Guest A/D]

I love when I can "AMERICA, FUCK YEAH" unironically!

[superstix]

California needs to get with the program. Congrats NY!

[baph]

yeah, gay couples could really do the world a favor by adopting the unwanted products of failed hetero relationships. the least they can do is not add to an overcrowded world through artificial means.

 

and i understand wanting to raise a kid that carries your genes, but with gay couples it's only one of the partner's genes and some stranger's. defeats the whole purpose. just seems pointless and ego-driven.

 

i brought it up cos this silly broad was on the front page of NPR.org along wiht the gay marriage story.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/babyproject/2011/06/24/137255367/meet-the-mom-jolivette-mecenas

 

All reproduction is pointless and ego-driven.

[awepittance]

too bad our 'intelligent' president of the untied states is way behind the curve on this one, he's even behind Karl Rove, Mccain's daughter and Cheney on this one (yes they have all come out in favor of gay marriage)

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfuonhoWh3Q

 

watch the strategic attempts to dodge the question repeatedly through his surrogates

 

fucking pathetic man, and probably most likely a lot of gay people will vote for him

 

Obama’s Gay Marriage Wimp-Out

LGBT activists hoped President Obama might say something new about his “evolving” stance on marriage equality when he addressed them at a New York fundraiser Thursday night. But the president showed he’s only willing to extend enough support to keep the cash flowing.

June 24, 2011 9:27 AM EDT

 

President Obama said absolutely nothing new about his stance on same-sex marriage to the 600-plus donors assembled at Thursday night’s annual LGBT Leadership Council Gala in New York City. Many of those who paid between $1,125 and $38,500 to fill his 2012 war chest had hoped he might, buoyed by recent stories about his “evolving” stance on marriage equality. Certainly the gala offered the perfect opportunity for Obama to at least throw his support behind the same-sex marriage bill currently working its way through Albany.

 

But none of that happened. Instead Obama, reading from a script that might as well have come from 2008, offered up a straight diet of the same ringing but empty “inspirational” rhetoric that has begun to wear thin with so many of his progressive supporters.

 

The audience didn’t begin to become restless until it became evident that Obama would punt. Midway through his speech, lines like, “I believed discriminating against people was wrong. I had no choice. I was born that way,” still had the audience laughing and applauding in anticipation of the Big Moment. And when, a few lines later, he said, “I believe that gay couples deserve the same legal rights as every other couple in this country,” most of the room rose to its feet.

 

But when Obama veered sharply from there to begin listing many of the same small, easily rescinded accomplishments the administration has been touting for months, followed by a disquisition on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and states’ rights (in reference to Albany), cries for “Marriage!” built. An unfazed Obama finished up with a plea for the audience’s time and energy—and most of all, money.

 

Then, right on cue, the lights came up and the man who had promised to be a “fierce advocate” for LGBT rights was gone, leaving behind the message that if only his audience would be polite and patient for another four years, and write a lot of checks, some unspecified something or other good might happen for them.

[baph]

Obama was pretty clearly pro-gay marriage before the 2008 campaign and there was a lot of obfuscation leading up to the campaign, followed by Obama's I'M A CHRISTIAN THIS IS R0NG shtick in the campaign leading up to election, followed by the present "my views are evolving on this" shtick.

 

It's too obvious to point out what's going on here, I think.

 

(Please don't interpret this as a defense of Obama)