For Those Against Gay Marriage...

[300miles]

what does that mean... we're having the debate right here.

[FisherRd]

Some of those 44 are debating it.
New York is one of them.

The point is what other states and other countries do is irrellevant. There wouldn't be any point in having states if we all had the same laws.

[Yankeefan2009]

what does that mean... we're having the debate right here.

And you are the master debater

[300miles]

The point is what other states and other countries do is irrellevant. There wouldn't be any point in having states if we all had the same laws.

It's relevant because all US states accept marriages from other states. It would be a pretty big mess if your fully legal marriage in NY wasn't valid in TX when you move for a job, or retire somewhere else, or are injured while on vacation. I can't think of any precedence for something as important as marriage being invalidated when crossing US state lines.

[300miles]

And you are the master debater

[FisherRd]

It's relevant because all US states accept marriages from other states.
Really? So a gay marriage in Iowa is accepted in New Mexico? State laws are State Laws, not Federal laws. They don't all translate to other states.
It would be a pretty big mess if your fully legal marriage in NY wasn't valid in TX when you move for a job, or retire somewhere else, or are injured while on vacation. I can't think of any precedence for something as important as marriage being invalidated when crossing US state lines.

Not as important as marriage, but...If NY allowed everyone to carry a gun it doesn't mean I can carry one when i travel to Vermont. States have the ability to set their own agendas to a point, taking that away would take away the USA's identity.

You're still getting away from the point (but I see what you're trying to get at). Just because one state (or country) does something doesn't mean it's correct, smart, or even a good idea.

[300miles]

I was merely pointing out that it is relevant, when you said differing state laws on marriages was irrelevant. Marriage, up until now, has been accepted across all US state boundaries. And creating a new situation where a marriage is legal in certain states but void in other states will create some very complicated situations that have never been an issue before. Does that mean they must be reciprocated? No. Just that the issue is relevant to the discussion.

[Mindcrime]

No, because marriage has always been for two people of the opposite sex. Gay people can get married, but they just have to marry opposite sex people like everyone else.

Laws based on race alone were unConstitutional because there was a precedent and mixed race couples have been married before.

You need to re-read Loving vs. Virginia. And get a fifth grader to help you with the big words.

What you're basically saying is that it's OK for a person of any race to get married, as long as blacks marry other blacks, asians marry other asians, whites marry other whites, etc.

Or to reiterate what you stated, anyone of any sexual orientation can get married, as long as men marry women.

[Mindcrime]

Either two people of the same sex can "marry" or they cannot. There is no debate, to paraphrase Yoda.

They are also "debating" polygamy marriage and underage marriage in other states.

Another argument for "traditional marriages?" At one time, if a girl wasn't married by age 15, she was considered an old maid.

[nogods]

Either two people of the same sex can "marry" or they cannot. There is no debate, to paraphrase Yoda.

They are also "debating" polygamy marriage and underage marriage in other states.

I think we should be more accurate and say "two people of the same gender."


Polygamy and other non-traditional forms of relationships enter the discussion because the poorly thought out logic of the anti-gay marriage crowd leads to such instances as examples of their logic.