Fight to legalize gay marriage in Rho...

Fight to legalize gay marriage in Rhode Island

There are 524 comments on the New York Daily News story from Jan 15, 2013, titled Fight to legalize gay marriage in Rhode Island. In it, New York Daily News reports that:

Supporters of same-sex marriage rights plan to assemble at the Rhode Island Statehouse to urge lawmakers to make the smallest state the 10th to allow gay and lesbian couples to wed - and the last to do so in New England.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at New York Daily News.

First Prev
of 27
Next Last

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#534 Feb 3, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
It may become irrelevant to you, but to millions of gays & lesbians the right to marry is very relevant.
Uhhhhh...huh....and yet only a small percentage of "gays & lesbians" exercise that right, and far more lesbians than gays actually do.
And to 100s of millions of Americans marriage will remain relevant even though same-sex couples can marry.
Ya might want to rework the math on that.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#535 Feb 3, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Uhhhhh...huh....and yet only a small percentage of "gays & lesbians" exercise that right, and far more lesbians than gays actually do.
<quoted text>
Ya might want to rework the math on that.
It matters a great deal to those that do marry, and those that may marry someday.

It matters to the vast majority, even those who will choose never to avail themselves of the right, and to many many millions of straight folks as well.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#536 Feb 3, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
.....
I wasn't referring to individual marriages, rather the concept of marriage, and why it exists in the first place. If human reproduction wasn't sexual, why would it matter who married who? Would marriage as we know it exist today?
But individual marriages are the ONLY important thing, aren't they? That's where life is lived. Marriage not just a static concept in the minds of others.

There is no one large, overwhelming, impersonal institution with a life of it's own called "marriage". It's ALWAYS about individuals and THEIR marriages, whether or not they choose to reproduce, that are important.

Again, I think that you have never been married yourself, because you don't really seem to understand what a marriage IS.

And, are you really going to try to argue that marriage today is all that similar to marriage throughout history? I doubt many Americans would want to go back to marriages arranged for dynastic/business purposes, child marriage, bans on interracial marriages, and the "women as chattel" thing.

Change happens. And many times it's a GOOD thing.

If you believe that gay people marrying someone of the same gender is not so good, you need valid and logical reasons why.

"We didn't do it a hundred years ago" isn't a valid or logical reason, on it's own, to prevent something NOW. Prove that same sex marriages are bad for gay folks, bad for their kids, and will harm straight folks in some way.

If you can't make such an argumetn in a rational way, why bother to keep posting?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#537 Feb 4, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
But individual marriages are the ONLY important thing, aren't they? That's where life is lived. Marriage not just a static concept in the minds of others.
True....however that's not the issue here is it? The issue in question is how we as a scoiety legally, and to a certain extent, culturally, define marriage.
There is no one large, overwhelming, impersonal institution with a life of it's own called "marriage". It's ALWAYS about individuals and THEIR marriages, whether or not they choose to reproduce, that are important.
All the individual conjugal marriages form and shape the "institution" of marriage as we know it. An institution, which has evolved across time, place and culture. The one constant is its a male female union.What ever indiviudal variations there are, do not change the core essence. There's no deep seated gay, and/or lesbian marriage institution of "husband and husband", or "wife and wife". If there were, would this debate be necessary?
Again, I think that you have never been married yourself, because you don't really seem to understand what a marriage IS.
Hold on a minute, let me check my marriage license...be right back.....whaddya know...I am married and have been for some time now, even consumated my marriage, engaged in martial relations, and begot children.
And, are you really going to try to argue that marriage today is all that similar to marriage throughout history? I doubt many Americans would want to go back to marriages arranged for dynastic/business purposes, child marriage, bans on interracial marriages, and the "women as chattel" thing.
My argument, which I sense you already know, is that despite all the "change" in regards to marriage, the one constant, male female, hasn't changed. Why would it? Why would societies througout human history, despite the acceptance, tolerance, and/or promotion of, both same sex sexual behaivor, and relationships, in various times and places, organize themselves around anything but the male female relationship?

Considering the high, divorce rate, out of wedlock births rate, and cohabitiation rate, in American society, would some form of "arrranged marriage" be a bad idea? I realize that idea is an afront to our notions of "equality", an "independence", but is our society really better off now in the marital realm today, than we were in the 1960's and earlier? Is divorce, "no fault", despite it neccessity, really the solution?
Change happens. And many times it's a GOOD thing.
If you believe that gay people marrying someone of the same gender is not so good, you need valid and logical reasons why.
And many times its a bad thing. Can you say "no fault" divorce? Gay marriage may be great for gay people, however that does not mean it is for society as a whole, or society has to legally say it is, or legally redefine the concept of marriage to prove that. Should the government intiate a gay marriage promotion campaign? Encourage gay folks to "wait until marriage", "not shack up", and/or become "honest men and women"?
"We didn't do it a hundred years ago" isn't a valid or logical reason, on it's own, to prevent something NOW.
True...however....sometimes there's valid reasons why something wasn't done before. If SSM is such a hot idea, why haven't we seen it before, beyond a few scattered historical examples? In all of human societal history, why hasn't there been a consistant SSM, male for female, sustained culture?
Prove that same sex marriages are bad for gay folks, bad for their kids, and will harm straight folks in some way.
Can you prove the opposite? That there are no long term consequences to redefining marriage? We've seen the effects of "no fault" divorce on our society, and that took a generation or two for the effects to be fully realized. Legal consensual plural marriage harmful?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 27
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Middletown Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Mysterious RI beach blast hurts one, leads to e... Jul 13 Natural Causes 1
Newport Flower Show 06-20-2015 Jul 3 Gail Hawthorne 1
Tiverton Music Selection (Sep '12) Jul '15 Musikologist 11
News Rhode Island teen jailed for allegedly assaulti... (Oct '14) Oct '14 Zacuraman 1
Debate: Health Care - Middletown, RI (Dec '09) Dec '13 rosemarie hazard 3
Halloween Party Dockside (Oct '13) Oct '13 LOVE THIS COUNTRY 2
News LIVE: Portsmouth Town Council Meeting of May 13... (May '13) May '13 Jack Kelly 1
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Middletown Mortgages