New York Passes Marriage Equality

That's pretty fabulous.

I must be the only one that seems very mixed about this. :/ I am very glad that same-sex couples get the same rights as married couples though.

Glittertastic!

No but really, good for them. I also have mixed emotions on this as well but I'm happy for them!

Fabulous! :o

But really, pretty good they noticed that not allowing something that already exists is not leading anywhere. Gay couples exist, live together, share their goods, have the same rights as others, why not to allow something that already technically happens. It exists, just some people refuse to see it. Pretty good that people are finally letting go of some old points of view. :>

Those that oppose this bill are no different than those that fought for slavery.

Lol, the quantity of ignorance in this part of your post is completely shocking. They are, in fact, COMPLETELY different. THIS is the problem with the educational system.

Congratz to gay couples in NY state.

Lol, the quantity of ignorance in this part of your post is completely shocking. They are, in fact, COMPLETELY different. THIS is the problem with the educational system.

Congratz to gay couples in NY state.

The basis is the same.
Lack of human rights.

The basis is the same.
Lack of human rights.

A 600lb person eating because they are so fat it takes a lot of calories to sustain all of those cells in their massive body, and are thus hungry.
A 55lb person eating because they have been starved in a concentration camp, and are thus hungry.

I'd say the basis is the same, hunger. I'd still say they are obscenely different.

Lack of equality is what makes them the same. Situation? Different, as you have pointed out.

That, however, does not make him ignorant, or prove a flaw with the educational system. Those for slavery wanted to continue treating human beings as property, depriving them of human rights. Those against equality for homosexuals and all therein are also depriving them of human rights.

For someone who sees in black and white I'm surprised you missed something so simple as that.

So a person with his leg chopped off and the stump gushing blood is the same as a person whose pinky is broken?
I mean, both require medical attention, so it's the same thing, right?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for same-sex marriage. But considering that same-sex couples can already live together, raise children, share property, hold whatever ceremony they wish to celebrate their love, and so on, the State not accepting their status (and therefore forcing them to draw up any number of legal documents to insure their rights and responsibilities towards each other and their children) is not nearly in the same playing field as slavery.

So a person with his leg chopped off and the stump gushing blood is the same as a person whose pinky is broken?
I mean, both require medical attention, so it's the same thing, right?

The basis of injury is the same, but I think we all recognize that those two situations are very very different.

Lack of equality is what makes them the similar. Situation? Different, as you have pointed out.

Not the same. There's a huge difference, which is what i'm pointing out.

That, however, does not make him ignorant, or prove a flaw with the educational system. Those for slavery wanted to continue treating human beings as property, depriving them of human rights. Those against equality for homosexuals and all therein are also depriving them of human rights.

For someone who sees in black and white I'm surprised you missed something so simple as that.

Treating someone as property is sooooo different from not permitting two individuals from getting married, while they are still able to do pretty much anything else. To say that they are the same seems to be like a tragic mistake has been made in the education of this individuals. However, in all fairness, it may well have just been a choice for him/her to ignore instruction, so i'll take that bad.

The simplicity is in the scope. In a broad enough scope, all things could probably be compared to be similar/the same. My argument is with the relevancy of the comparison. In this case, it's severely flawed.

So a person with his leg chopped off and the stump gushing blood is the same as a person whose pinky is broken?
I mean, both require medical attention, so it's the same thing, right?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for same-sex marriage. But considering that same-sex couples can already live together, raise children, share property, hold whatever ceremony they wish to celebrate their love, and so on, the State not accepting their status (and therefore forcing them to draw up any number of legal documents to insure their rights and responsibilities towards each other and their children) is not nearly in the same playing field as slavery.

While it may not be in the same extreme, I can see where Kurtle was coming from.

Different events have different meanings towards different groups of people. Just because things are objectively different doesn't mean they can't be equally significant towards their respective audience.

A boy losing 50 dollars from his savings could be NOTHING in your point of view to Bill Gates going bankrupt. Who's to say for sure either of them is struck harder emotionally than the other?

Really the problem with both your examples, White and Sapta, are the extremes of the cases. You have an overly obese and an overly underweight as your example. Then you have a serious injury and then you have a minor injury. Human rights isn't defined as an ultimatum of a highest or lowest type of depriving.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_...ted_States

Also, discussion time! For those happy for this progress, yet still hold mixed feelings, I'm curious - why mixed feelings? What reservations do you still have?

It's a scope issue. Zoom out and they are the same. Zoom in and you can see the differences. My statement is exactly what you're saying. While the human rights issues of slavery and gay marriage are both human rights issues, they are vastly different, when you actually compare them.

I do have to agree here with White. The generalization that those who oppose gay marriage are "no different" from those who supported slavery is a fair stretch. The consensus that you guys have reached is far truer than Kurtle's generalization.

Those that oppose this bill are no different than those that fought for slavery.

Note that this talks about "those that oppose".
And here, I'm going to say, even in principle, even in the macro, there are no similarities.

Those that fought for slavery were motivated by greed. They did not want to lose their property, their "farm animals".
Those that oppose same-sex marriage are doing it because they truly believe homosexuality is wrong and should not be encouraged.

Malice and stupidity. Not to be confused.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_...ted_States

Also, discussion time! For those happy for this progress, yet still hold mixed feelings, I'm curious - why mixed feelings? What reservations do you still have?

Oh that's simple. While I do approve that same-sex couples should have the right to be together, be recognized by the state as a couple, and be given the same rights as married couples, I'm saddened how the definition of marriage has changed.

This isn't just religious beliefs I'm talking out of here. I've always grown up with the ideal that a marriage is solely between a man and a woman. I was always exposed to it in some form or another, whether it was from my huge family with many of their happily married couples, to meeting many of my friends' parents and seeing how happy they are. It may not make much sense from all of that, but in the end I never gave the definition of marriage a second thought. If I wanted to marry someone, I'll do it happily with the woman that I can love and cherish and trust.

Now just because I say all that does not mean I hate gay/lesbian/bi people nor do I disapprove of same-sex couples. After all, I do have friends that are gay/lesbian/bi, and some of them happen to be in a pretty nice relationship, so kudos to them. I think it's awkward, but I don't give it any more negative thought than that. We're all human, and we have rights and choices we are free to make. And again, I am happy that they finally get the rights they deserve.

I'm just not comfortable with how marriage has changed. To me, I thought it was something really special to have between a man and a woman. Now it's not like that anymore. :/ I'd be more inclined to say civil unions instead of same-sex marriages, but that's just me.

So, who'd like to be the first person to flame me? Not that it'd matter since I'm not changing how I feel about what a marriage means to me, but go ahead anyway.

I'm just not comfortable with how marriage has changed. To me, I thought it was something really special to have between a man and a woman. Now it's not like that anymore. :/ I'd be more inclined to say civil unions instead of same-sex marriages, but that's just me.

So, who'd like to be the first person to flame me? Not that it'd matter since I'm not changing how I feel about what a marriage means to me, but go ahead anyway.

Why flame? Feeling is feeling, and at least you let reason overcome it when it comes to "voting".
Personally I've had no problem switching the idea of "something really special to have between a man and a woman" with "something really special to have between two people". Just as, despite growing up in an all-white country, I was able to upgrade my notion of "human" to include Africans and East Asians, and even feel "marriage" can apply to them too...

I'm just not comfortable with how marriage has changed. To me, I thought it was something really special to have between a man and a woman. Now it's not like that anymore. :/ I'd be more inclined to say civil unions instead of same-sex marriages, but that's just me.

While I do see where you're coming from, not everyone believes in that definition (obviously), especially since IMO it's a very limited definition. For me, marriage is something that is had between two people who love each other, case and point. :p (In case anyone mentions it to be a smartass, I mean two unrelated people.)

I'm very happy for this bill because it means two people in love aren't restricted from being legally recognized as a married couple, no matter what gender they are.