NY governor to unveil bill to legalize gay marriage

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Sure, if it meant marriage went back to being what it once was - a religious institution.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Sure, if it meant marriage went back to being what it once was - a religious institution.

But that's just it...that's a misnomer. Religion didn't invent marriage.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

If religion didn't invent marriage, then saying marriage was originally a religious institution is not a misnomer.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

If religion didn't invent marriage, then saying marriage was originally a religious institution is not a misnomer.

What I mean is that marriage didn't originate from religion. That's a bunch of bunk.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

If religion didn't invent marriage, then saying marriage was originally a religious institution is not a misnomer.

What I mean is that marriage didn't originate from religion. That's a bunch of bunk.

Ok, so re-educate me.

[Ban Hammer 13,346]

If religion didn't invent marriage, then saying marriage was originally a religious institution is not a misnomer.

What I mean is that marriage didn't originate from religion. That's a bunch of bunk.

Ok, so re-educate me.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If religion didn't invent marriage, then saying marriage was originally a religious institution is not a misnomer.

What I mean is that marriage didn't originate from religion. That's a bunch of bunk.

Ok, so re-educate me.

Well he's right. Marriage is a pretty ancient institution - it (obviously) pre-dates Christianity and most human cultures have a version of it. In ancient Rome, for example - marriages were pre-arranged affairs for the purpose of securing political alliances.

Incidentally there were a few roman emperors who married male lovers, though it certainly wasn't common practice for the Average Joe.

[Danno 1,228]

Col. your quote from the interracial marriage case (which you use as evidence) proves nothing as it says this in part;

<<<Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment...>>>

There is a world of difference between a man and woman of different shades, than between two (or more) men.

Do you really think the Supreme Court would over turn the vote and ignore the will so recently expressed by so many people ......to unearth some Right which would then be used to justify marriage to unlimited ends?

You don't have enough Ginsburgs on the court.... better wait till Obama fills some seats first.

I wish it would go to the Supreme Court too, there is nothing more I love than to watch the -** crowd- in tears.

Edited April 16, 2009 by Danno

[Peikko 1,575]

A homophobic sadist. Oh goody

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

A homophobic sadist. Oh goody

I believe its called an opinion. Nice name though.

[Peikko 1,575]

Enjoying the thought of 'the ** crowd in tears' is not an opinion.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Enjoying the thought of 'the ** crowd in tears' is not an opinion.

Their homos right? its short for your pc correct h o m o s e x u a l. Do you see the word ** in there? Now your spillin tears for the homos. Just like Mad is short for madame

[Peikko 1,575]

Could you try that again in English please.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Could you try that again in English please.

** is not a bad word!

[Peikko 1,575]

Not being a homosexual, I do not really know how being called ** is considered these days, but, strangely, that was not my point. Watching someone in tears and enjoying it, was.