personallt i think that its great that there getting this passed by in NY i hink no matter what a women and women or a man and a man people should still have the same right to marry who they want and to be with the rst of thre life love is love and thats it u can't tell someone they cant love someone of the same sex and be like its wrong because its not as long as u both love eachother its not wrong it should be perfectly fine

sothurn, the polygamy arguers would never bring interracial marriage into this because, even though people like nola are complete idiots, they are smart enough to know that overt racism will immediately cost them their moral and (and I use this term lightly) intellectual argument. it's still acceptable to bash gays in public, but few people who still wanted a soapbox on which to preach would ever dare letting racism enter into the debate. nola is a coward because it doesn't take much courage to deny rights to a group that historically has had few.

If "righteous" people who damn gays are going to Heaven, then PLEASE God I'd rather be burning in Hell simply to get away from them.

It seems to me I keep reading the same old thoughts and same old arguments on this subject. After a few hours of this I'm only left with a few random original thoughts.

1. "Changing the definition of marriage." This keeps coming up. It's as if all the conservatives out there suddenly became semioticians. Definitions change all the time. So now we are basing legal arguments on the meaning of a word? It's worse than Clinton's debating the meaning of the word "is." Gay people have been getting "married" for ages, at least as far as the word is commonly understood. If we are talking about the word in legal use, that patently changes all the time - most recently in the Loving decision about interracial marriage.

2. Interracial marriage: relevant, because this is a parallel situation using the exact same arguments. Before Loving, "marriage" historically meant marriage between two people of the same race. Go back a century: fewer people would have even considered a marraige between different races about anything more than perverse sexuality than understand gay marriage today. Allowing people of different races to get legally married "redefined" the word as well as redefined people's perception of what love between different races meant.

3. Analogies. The same analogies are always tossed around any time marriage rights are extended to another excluded group: marry my dog, blah blah. But a dog isn't a person with rights so what the hell kind of argument is that?

4. Polygamy. Somehow, I get the feeling that peope who bring up this issue are not really Polygamysts who believe in multiple partners. They are just using it as a camel's nose in the door argument. I guess Polygamy is the camel everyone is afraid of. But I don't see how one gets from gay marriage to poligamy. Gays are a group that are being excluded from being allowed to marry the 1 person they are in love with. In this regard they are not being treated as equal to heterosexuals. In fact, it seems to me that interracial marriage is closer to polygamy than gay marriage. I don't see why there is a fundamental right to marry a person of another race if you could reasonably fall in love with someone of your own race. But since gay people can't fall in love with people of the opposite gender, they are being excluded from the entire institution. So extending marriage to oposite races seems much closer to extending it to multiple partners...and everyone seems to accept that. I just don't get it...why aren't the polygamy arguers more afraid of interracial marriage as the key to the slippery slope?

this is just futile. if common sense, respect for your fellow citizen, simple logic, the reality of history, and statistics aren't enough, we can let the future make the final case. nola, it might be interesting for you to save a copy of this thread and read it in ten years. if it still hasn't sunk in, you'll at least marvel at your own contortionist routine.

You can't measure the popularity of either gay or polygamous marriage unless they are legal. I do think you would see more people entering polygamous marriages than you would gay marriages. For one, polygamy has much more acceptance around the world and through history than gay marriage does. For another, the overwhelming majority of the population is hetero. So even if one-quarter of all gays got married (very unlikely), a miniscule percentage of heteros getting married would outnumber them.

The link between the two that I am making is this: if you legalize one, I can see no reason why you shouldn't legalize the other. Of course it is possible that one would be legalized and the other would not, I'm just giving my opinion. But the likelihood that polygamy would follow gay marriage is, in my opinion, a reason to oppose gay marriage.

nola, if you can't measure polygamy's popularity one way or the other, how would you later be able to measure it if gay marriage were legalized? how would you establish a causal link between gay marriage and polygamy, if that's where you think gay marriage leads?

j: You've come completely unglued. You don't seem to handle adversity very well. The Showtime references, the use of CAPS (you and hijiki should take a relaxing vacation together), the gratuitous use of "homophobe" ( a sure sign that your arguments have run out of steam), the refusal to admit obvious facts (anyone doubting the fact that lesbians have a much greater tendency to form long-term relationships than gay men is either blind or stupid) - all detract from the reasonable points you made earlier. Mature adults should be able to agree to disagree. Sorry you couldn't muster up a little more humility - it would serve you well in future debates.

gar - I never said religion or marriage or anything else is a panacea for society's ills. I guess exaggerating my points is the only way you can debate them?

If there were some magic test that could prove what the impact on the institution were, and it was positive or neutral I would change my position. Good enough for you?

Finally: "Let's see if I get it. Polygamy's popularity can't be proven, but it's the entire support for your argument against gay marriage. Is that right?"

No, that is wrong. I never said anything about polygamy's popularity being the reason I don't support gay marriage. I've made the point that the arguments that support gay marriage can also support polygamy. Whether or not you agree, that was my point. Now go back to the sidelines.

Been watching from the sidelines but have to point out this glaring contradiction.

Nola said, "The question of polygamy's popularity cannot be proven definitively one way or another. But the expansion of gay rights and the restrictions placed on polygamy are completely unrelated and I think polygamy would be far more common than gay marriage if they were both legal."

Let's see if I get it. Polygamy's popularity can't be proven, but it's the entire support for your argument against gay marriage. Is that right? How can you claim gay marriage will lead to increased polygamy if you can't cite stats or don't have a measure for polygamy's popularity? Surely someone as obsessed with it as you would have a copy of the Polygamy Association's newsletter. If you're posting as the foremost authority on the link between gay marriage and a potential rise in polygamy, be so kind as to provide the good people with facts, my brother.

Did you know there's a high rate of spousal abuse in Orthodox communities? If they are staying married because of their religious beliefs and not because of laws, as you assert, why the hell are they beating their wives? I guess a strict religious belief about marriage is not a panacea for society's ills.

Nola again, "I won't support the redefinition of marriage unless I believe it will have a positive impact on the institution and its role in society." Okay. What if there was a net zero impact? No harm whatsover but no noticible benefit to the institution overall. No effect on Adam and Eve living down the street from Adam and Steve, to use a parlance you've probably chanted at rallies. If that could be proven would you accept legalizing gay marriage? I'd stick around for your answer, but I'm betting it will have something to do with polygamy.

Since you're so loose with the facts and have a hard time finding any to make your case, I'll give you an easy one: You are a total moron caught in a neverending loop of your own contradictions and stupidity.

Some lessons learned as I leave this discussion.

One: Nola pulls stats out of his butt. How does he know that gay couples are less interested in long-term relationships? But wait! Isn't that a contradiction of his own line of reasoning? Didn't he just say that lesbians are more inclined to long-term relationships than gay men? So which is it? I gather that Nola loves the late night HLA on Cinemax, but hates the silly antics of the Queer Eye boys.

Even if men are more promiscuous by nature than women, there is no evidence that gay men who want to marry are more promiscuous than those who don't want to marry. If anything, Nola, you've just made the argument for allowing only lesbian marriage, since according to your research only women are capable of keeping their pants on. Actually, I'm sure you have lots of experience with women keeping their pants on when they are around you. So, point Nola.

Two: Nola is OBSESSED with polygamy. OBSESSED! It's remarkable. You could work it into a discussion about legalizing marijuana or supply-side economics, couldn't you?

Three: Nola is, in fact, homophobic. The proof is in the pudding. I'll let someone else really hash out his "instability so prevalent in the gay community" remark but did you know the federal government is promoting marriage among low-income people? (Rather than offering, say, additional tax credits or expanding job training.) Why? Because Uncle Sam thinks that marriage might provide a little more stability in the live of poor people, in the lives of the children they raise, and in lives of the greater community. Marriage, I guess, is seen by the federal government as a stabilizing factor for poor people. Too bad those gay boys in Chelsea - and really, are there any other kind in Nola's mind? - are too rich to qualify for some good ol' marriage counseling courtesy of Uncle Sam.

But alas. There's no point arguing in a polygamy-obsessed, homophobic idiot.

Nola, you've made your case loud and clear.

con ghost: We are in agreement - you are definitely not a comedian. Your jokes fall flat and your attempts to portray me as a fascist were funnier than anything else you have said. Now I'm a homophobe. How about a Nazi? Racist? Klansman? Keep 'em coming. The nutty accusations are better than the jokes.

j: I do not see gay marriage as an isolated issue but part of the larger issue of what marriage is and what role it plays in our society. That is obviously too large an issue to adequately address in this forum (and arguing serious matters with the likes of hijiki and con ghost is a fool's errand). I've repeatedly explained that I believe polygamy will follow (or precede) gay marriage. This (in my opinion, which I recognize cannot be proven because it has not yet happened) will have a negative impact on marriage in our society. There are already too many out of wedlock births and divorces. The redefinition of marriage to expand gays and polygamists will foreclose the possibility of making divorce more restrictive because most gays and polygamists will oppose such a movement.

As you point out, Catholics (practicing ones, not phonies like Kerry and Kennedy) and Orthodox Jews enter into and stay in marriages despite lax divorce laws. But that is because of their religious beliefs. I've seen no evidence that this kind of faith is prevalent in the gay community, but if there were a genuine movement among gays for marriage without easy divorce I might rethink my position. You can take the easy way out and characterize my views as homophobic but to deny the enormous differences between the cultures of, say, Chelsea and Crown Heights is absurd. I don't think many gay men would pursue marriage if there wasn't easy divorce available.

The question of polygamy's popularity cannot be proven definitively one way or another. But the expansion of gay rights and the restrictions placed on polygamy are completely unrelated and I think polygamy would be far more common than gay marriage if they were both legal. You don't think that polygamy would follow gay marriage and we just have to agree to disagree.

Finally, I deny that anyone opposed to gay marriage has to prove that it impacts them directly. Who here is impacted by polygamy? Does everyone here support legalized polygamy or not? For all the complaints I'm getting about my evasiveness, I keep asking for a simple yes or no on polygamy and everyone finds some way to avoid answering the question.

I could argue that these things impact the culture at large that in turn impacts all of us, but it is a speculative argument and not necessary to my original point, which is that I won't support the redefinition of marriage unless I believe it will have a positive impact on the institution and its role in society.

hijiki: The record for same-sex civil unions is irrelevant. It's like saying a baseball player's minor league stats are as important as his major league stats. Whoops - I forgot that analogies confuse you. Now you'll accuse me of comparing civil rights to statistics.

And my implication is not that gay couples are less capable of long-term relationships, it is that they are less interested. For one thing, children are often the glue that keeps married couples together. There may be other reasons for the relative instability of gay relationships - I'm sure you think it's all society's fault. There is also no denying that men are more promiscuous by nature than women, so it isn't surprising that lesbians are more inclined to long-term relatioinships than gay men. Whatever the cause, it is impossible to ignore the instability so prevalent in the gay community.

yup nola, supporting equal rights is lunatic. (sarcasm... i really don't believe that equality and fairness are crazy).

"More importantly, how many gay men would be interested in marriage under those circumstance?"

um... i believe the record for lasting same-sex civil unions is better than hetero marriage. you do realize that, with that question, you're implying that commited homosexual couples are less capable of long-lasting relationships.

more importantly, are you saying that, like polygamy, homosexuality is morally wrong?

what question of yours has not been answered, nola? i'd love to get them all answered in exchange for an answer to the most basic question that you continually evade.

Gay marriage won't hurt heterosexuals and Nola has shown again and again the baselessness of the idea that it could.

However by NOT allowing homosexuals to marry, gays will remain second class citizens without the rights that so many heterosexaul couples take for granted. Do people actaully think that amending the constitution to exclude gays will produce a favorable outcome? That the issue will just dissapear and gays will march back into the closet and live out the rest of thier lives as the subhumans that the bigots have consigned them too?

Gay people are NOT going away. History has shown that only negative things can come off an oppression of an entire group of people.

Noone is asking anyone to change thier own perosonal ideas about gay marriage. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be legal in a diverse democratic country. Quite simply: If you don't like gay marriage, Don't have a gay marriage!!!!

by the way, i know it's effect (noun) and affect (verb). sorry for the mistake, but I wanted to point it out before someone jumped down my throat and didn't respond to the substance of my argument.

Nola, I'm trying to be nice, but it's getting harder and harder to believe that you aren't a close-minded bigot. And a manipulative one at that. Obviously you haven't read anything anyone has written, nor do you care to. Your questions about polygamy have been answered over and over again. Yet you refuse to take any responsibility for your own opinions.

I see your tactics: pick up on the one or two things that offend you (ie. being called a fascist, misinterpreting a stupid baby-eating comment) and use it as an excuse to avoid backing up your opinions. Your arguments are about the tactics of arguing, not about the topic of the conversation itself.

I wouldn't call you a fascist because I don't think you are one and I would never throw that label around casually. I believe that the government can and should restrict certain activities, and you would have seen that we agree on that point had you read my posts. We have a lot more in common than you think. But you aren't thinking too much, just reacting to a word here and there without taking in the whole of a poster's argument.

You are right: you never exactly said that homosexuality or gay marriage affects you directly. But the basis for any and all arguments, including yours, against gay marriage is that allowing gay marriage would have a direct AFFECT on another institution, traditional heterosexual marriage, and that institution is populated by real people who would be affected. What are the direct affects, then? If I'm in a loving relationship with my wife, how will that be affected by gay marriage? Can you answer that question?

I never said that polls should dictate laws or that an upward trend in polygamy would mean that we should move to legalize it. I was simply pointing out that your argument - that gay marriage would lead to polygamy - doesn't hold water in the face of a growing acceptance of homosexuality in general and less interest in polygamy in general. If that has been because of high enforcement of anti-polygamy laws rather than less interest, great. But your argument that gay marriage would lead to increased polygamy or at least increased acceptance of polygamy is tenuous at best in the face of the evidence: gays are getting more rights across the country, yet polygamy rules have still been enforced. If gay rights have such an effect on society, why is that happening?

But again: polygamy is and has historically been a HETEROSEXUAL pursuit. One man who wants two or more wives, generally. He has sex with both of them, but rarely do the two women have sex with each other. That would make it the product of heterosexuality, not homosexuality.

And would gay still men be interested in marriage if divorce were harder to obtain? I'll answer your question, as I have been doing ever since I started posting. I think so, since plenty of Catholics enter into marriage even though their religion makes divorce difficult. Orthodox Jews have high marriage rates, and divorce is hardly easy to come by in ultra-Orthodox communities. (Do some research on the "get" and other aspects of Orthodox Jewish marriage and you'll see this, too.)

Nevertheless, your question about gays and divorce strikes me as somewhat homophobic, somehow implying that those promiscuous gays might never want to get married if they still couldn't get out of it later to resume their freewheeling, sleepin' around ways. Are you saying that gay men wouldn't want to marry someone they love if there wasn't an escape clause? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but even if you aren't being homophobic, you are certainly trivializing the emotional bond between gay partners.

If you'd like to answer the questions posed to you, go ahead. Otherwise there is little more that can be said. If you can't be responsible enough to read the entirety of someone's argument, how can you have a conversation?

The polygamists eating your babies was a low-brow attempt at humor. It's meant to be silly and ridiculous, because it makes about as much sense as your fear of gay marriage. Of course, in America, you definitely have the right to have no sense of humor. (But alas, I'm no comedian.)

Your use of analogies isn't beyond our means. It's just odd that whenever you have to compare same-sex marriage to something, it usually involves defecation, toilets or inbreeding. It's a subtle sign that you equate same-sex marriage to shit. Which could possibly have a subtext--that you have reservations against anal sex.

I guess this does affect some people directly....gay sex is pretty frightening to a homophobe. But that's already legal. Allowing gay marriage means permitting homosexuals to be treated fairly, which is, again, frightening to a homophobe. If this phobia is deep-rooted, I guess that could be their argument. A bad argument, but at least it's an argument.

First of all, if I was a coward I wouldn't choose to post on a board where I did not expect a single person to take my side. And it's very nice of you to refrain from calling me a fascist - but is that only because you "don't think it's helpful" or because you don't think my views are fascist? I'd just like to know if I'm debating with a sane person or a hijiki/con ghost-style lunatic.

I have never stated or implied that gay marriage impacts me directly. The "polygamy card" is being played because nobody here can explain why polygamy should be illegal - who does it directly impact? According to your rationale, polygamy should be legal. You keep dodging the issue by making irrelevant points - so what if there has been a downward trend? Maybe that's because people don't like ending up in prison. If the trend increases does that mean it should be leagalized? If a nationwide poll showed more people supporting polygamy than gay marriage should it be legalized?

You may think this issue is a distraction, but the reluctance to simply state that polygamy is morally wrong illustrates the greater divide that exists between most of the people supporting the redefinition of marriage and most of the people opposing it. At issue is the definition of the institution and the role it plays in society. Polygamy is every bit as relevant as gay marriage.

As far as divorce goes, it should not be illegal but I think most of the changes to the divorce laws in the past forty years have been harmful to society. Would you support gay marriage if divorce were much harder to obtain? More importantly, how many gay men would be interested in marriage under those circumstance?

If I haven't addressed your questions, then I'm sorry, but the fact is you haven't answered mine either. And I do think anyone advocating the redefinition of marriage has to adequately address these concerns.

I'm not going to resort to calling you a fascist, Nola, because I don't think it's helpful. You are certainly entitled to your opinions, but if you are entering into a discussion, you should do it on equal terms.

We are saying that gay marriage would not hurt anyone, but you are asking us to prove our position. How can we prove a negative? Gay marriage will have no effect on heterosexual marriage. But you have said it will affect heterosexual marriage, yet you haven't said why with any tangible evidence.

I think your arguments are lacking a certain logic and you are afraid to answer a basic question. I also think you should drop the polygamy card, because it's been played, we've heard you and nothing new has been added to that conversation. You haven't really proven that homosexual marriage will lead to polygamy any more than heterosexual marriage already does. (Since most polygamous relationships are, and have historically been, heterosexual. Interestingly, polygamy is on a downward trend nationally although it was once widely practiced in various Mormon sects. This downward trend has coincided with a rise in the demand for gay rights during the last two decades.)

Nevertheless, you still won't answer the question. How does gay marriage affect you directly? I'd love to hear an answer, but based on your past postings don't think I'll get one. Nola, I'm sorry the other posters called you a fascist when, in fact, you are looking more and more like a coward.

Your analogies don't work and lack an understanding of one of the basics of law. Of course the government limits personal freedoms, as you cite. And I agree with you that many times the government should be in the business of restricting rights. But the laws, as they are supposed to be enforced, apply equally to all people. I can't smoke in a bar, but neither can a gay person. I have to drive 55 on a highway, and so does a gay person. I can't snort coke in my home, but neither can a gay person. I have to pay taxes to the government, and so does a gay person. The same standards apply to all adults, male or female, black or white, gay or straight, Christian or Jewish. If only white people could smoke in bars or if women were allowed drive 80 mph in a 55 zone while men got ticketed for doign 56, those laws would rightly be challenged as discriminatory and it sounds like you would agree with that classification. But suddenly when we get to marriage, we have a set of laws, restrictions and benefits that exclude an entire class of otherwise law-abiding, tax-paying citizens.

Remember, these benefits we are talking about are not just limited to taxes and estate planning. Spousal privilege - the right of a spouse to not have to testify agaist a spouse in court in some cases - does not apply to gay partners equally. There are thousands of benefits. Read some of them here:

http://gaylife.about.com/cs/mentalhealth1/a/benefits.htm

Many of these benefits will not be granted to gay couples until marriages or civil unions are granted equally to all. You are being ignorant if you really believe that estate planning is as simple as writing a will, even with an attorney, and saying that's the way it will be. Families, parents, siblings and other blood relatives of a gay person still have more rights in the life of that person than his partner does. Read up a bit on the list before you make assumptions. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but c'mon, do some homework first.

If you are afraid of a rise in divorce and believe that the government mixes morality and religion when making its laws - I agree, it sometimes does - then would you favor making divorce illegal? Should the Defense of Marriage Act have included a clause calling for an end to adultery? Where do ethical and religious influences on government end?

But I'm wary of asking you more questions when you still haven't answered the first one.

Yes, you can have an opinion about something that doesn't affect you directly, but the crux of your argument is that gay marriage does affect you directly. If that's the case, then please tell us how.

So here it is again:

How does allowing two men or two women to marry affect you and your marriage or potential marriage directly?

Yes, my posts make it perfectly clear that I oppose gay marriage because polygamists will eat my babies. Your analytical abilities will take you far in life.

Sorry the use of analogy seems to have taxed you and hijiki beyond your means. It must have been challenging to explain why anyone who supports any restriction on individual liberty is a fascist. Of course Gothamist can restrict our posts, so they are fascists too, correct? So why are you posting on a fascist website? Go play with your skateboard, junior.

analogies are a crutch used to make arguments when the writer can't otherwise form a direct, logical argument about the issue.

we're still waiting on the answer to that question: what harm would be done to you, society, or the institution of marriage? the fact that you've continually refused to answer it, and then claim that gays do have equal access to marriage, leads me to believe that you are morally opposed to homosexuality or see it as unnatural. is that the case? do you honestly believe that gays have equal access and, therefore, should just marry against their sexual orientation? do you really believe that turning marriage into a loveless friendship would slow the decay of marriage or would it actually create more marriages destined for divorce? the evidence is all around...i know of a governor in jersey who got a divorce....

and the constitution's ghost is right... those polygamists aren't going to hurt you... they are devout christians, afterall.