Welcome to the Gay State. It’s all up to…

If this govenor of ours allows this to happen it will end for the granite state.This is said what more to these people want all they seem to do is seek recognition. I guessin thier minds if the state approves it somehow it is not bad. Unbelievable I think it is time for or State to stop wasting time on Stupid laws that do nothing to promote added values to our society. I am sick of these people. Is this going to somehow add revenue to our State.

It’s the children, Putney. Now they will force this garbage into the schools at an even faster rate. It’s sick…

I’m not calling your life garbage, I’m calling the gay agenda forced into the schools “garbage.” You may do as you please, leave the kids out of it. That includes the “day of silence” crap.

Yes the new gay marriage agenda will be implimented in the school system it already is in the high school level. The Day of Silence was celebrated at many local schools without parents being aware. The Life decision to BE gay is an adult choice not to be confused with the regular biological changes kids go through during adolences.I know you will not understand because you need approval for your agenda and to make yourself feel excepted. But leave the children alone let them decide for themselves when they are adults. After Gay marriage passes what will be next Marriage to dogs, & cats, horses, who knows.

Unfortunately the “gay rights” agenda has proven once again why we cannot have a reasonable compromise on issues such as gay rights, abortion and gun control. Here’s why; I support gay rights, gun rights and I’m pro choice on the abortion issue. I consider myself a reasonable person. To that point, I am dead set against so called partial birth abortions and I’d consider some sort of limits on types of guns sold and who buys them. No need to get into that detail here because it would just further my point.
Unfortunately, the extremist will keep pushing the issue to a point where reasonable people simply won’t go. It makes us feel like we were rope a doped into agreeing with a reasonable request only to find we were simply “useful idiots” for the extreme cause.
Concerning Gay marriage I ask; Wasn’t the Civil Union Law supposed to give you the same legal privileges and rights as married folks? Not that there are many, if any, legal privileges that married people have. I could care less who people wish to choose as life partners so I had no problem with “Civil Union”. Concerning any “equal rights” issue I keep hearing about, that’s crap too. You have and always had the same rights as everyone else. We all could choose to marry another person of the opposite sex. So where’s the civil rights violation? Are you going to tell me that your rights are violated because you can’t marry the life partner you choose regardless of the rules the rest of us lived by? Does that mean your rights are violated if you want to marry your pet because you “love him/her”?
If you laugh at that question or shun it as ridiculous, you continue to make my point. When the Gay rights issue started the goal was (or so I was told by my gay relatives) to gain legal recognition such as medical coverage and legal contracts. NOWHERE was anybody talking about marriage nor did they include transgendered people.
I was once a passive supporter of the Gay and Lesbian movement. It didn’t affect my life and as stated earlier, I could care less who you live with. Now I DO CARE because it’s gone too far. It’s in my face every day. You’ve taken something loving and made it ugly by pushing the agenda to the extreme and personally, I think we haven’t even seen the worst of it yet!
YOU HAVE LOST MY SUPPORT AND VOTE!!!!!
Terry S.

Terry Stewart,
Whom are you addressing?
If it’s directed at me, would you be kind enough to explain what the “gay agenda” is?
Thanks,
W

The gay agenda is the teaching of the gay lifestyle as a normal “choice” (I’d rather teach readin’, writin’ and ‘rithmetic); turning restrooms into pervert zones, and seeing to it that the HRC turns into a star chamber meting out punishment for those exercising their 1st Amendment rights. I mostly get pissed over the school part, though, because you could push a confused child over the edge as far as making a “choice”. That should come later. I also believe in school uniforms, too. And segregated gym classes. I guess that makes me neanderthalic. Oh well. Grunt…

I just started a facebook group with info on how to contact NH reps.
Please join! Invite your friends. Or if you don’t join, help spread the information. I put a brief list of talking points that might be helpful.
I’m from CA and worked on the Prop 8 campaign. What i learned is that a small group of people can make a huge difference. The same-gender marriage activists are a VERY small group of people. But they are powerful because they speak to their elected officials!
So speak up!
Join here:
Protect Traditional Marriage in New Hampshire

There’s apparently at least two types of equal in this discussion?
One equality described as, “Men and women are different. What needs to be made equal is the value placed on those differences.”
The other is described as, “I cannot fully love someone of the other gender so the government needs to change its institution to accept my discrimination against them.”
Children place a real value and importance on their parentage. They learn real value from seeing the parents they identify with showing each other the true value of their identities in currency of commitment, love and support.
I’m not saying that only two people who procreate can love, honor and support each other. I’m just asking who better to show that love to for the sake of your children than the person you combined identities with to create theres?
And when you answer that question, you find that this isn’t a hetero v homo thing at all. Its marriage, the quality of each gender’s participation in the creation and governance of a family, vs any selfish ideal that tears people away from that.

Neither the institution of marriage, nor myself, should be seen as antagonistic towards homosexuality. Speaking words of wisdom, let marriage be marriage and let gays be gay.

Do you support a government program that explicitly targets …

1. the need to preserve the family links right where they are created?
2. recognizing the rights children have to know and be cherished by the two people who combined to create them?
3. establishing the model of equality as the quality of each gender’s participation and support in these obligations to the children they create? (in other words integration and mutual respect rather than segregation)

The fact that a man and a woman create children is not a choice. So what is wrong with a program suited to help out that one fact of life?

If marriage is not allowed to do that, then what program can?

That’s right Pomegranate, sexual orientation has nothing to do with marriage. The essence of marriage is inclusive of both sexes and as “On Lawn’ pointed out a program to possibly bring new life into the world.

Doug, will all do respect, you have no idea what are you talking about.

It is obvious that I am discussing this with closed-minded people. Since I am gay and know I did not choose my sexual orientation, I must defer to experts on sexual orientation such as Priscilla and Doug, who obviously know nothing about this issue.

Putney probably believes that there is some scientific evidence that supports a geneticly based gay outcome. Unfortunately there isn’t. The alledged study that supported such a conclusion was later found to be flawed because the scientist that “proved” it was gay himself and his research didn’t account for any other conclusion. A unfortunate fact that the gay community chooses to ignore. That said, there is definately something different about gay people. Maybe genetic or maybe not but there isn’t any evidence yet to say.
Would you conclude that pedophiles are genitically predisposed to desire children? or people who desire sex with animals genetically predisposed to do so? If so,why should they have these same supposed “rights” you claim you should have?
For me, I could care less. My point is that I don’t want to have this discussion anywhere and particularly in politics. In other words; yes I liked it when gay and lesbians were in the closet. I think most of them did too.
Let’s face it, if it weren’t for medical revelations and adoption, the gay community would only grow through those “becoming” gay (genetically or otherwise). Do you think it’s a good idea for society to embrace a concept that can’t possibly maintain a healthy new population. Humans are simply species living on a planet with many other species. Like those other species we are genetically driven to reproduce. Something the gay community CAN NOT do on their own.
That doesn’t make the gay community bad people, it’s simply a fact. As I tell my brother in law; “I love you, I simply disagree with your lifestyle”. I can agree to disagree. Can you?
The gay movement has become much like racial issues. You don’t want equal rights, you want SPECIAL rights. Your quest for “special” rights is only going to serve to further divide people and cause further “silent” segrigation. It’s already happening! When you lose people’s respect, it doesn’t matter what legal battles you win. We ALL lose!

So… Doug, Terry and Skip: On this and practically every other issue I disagree with you, however, you seem to be very committed to your opinions and I can respect that. What concerns me is what I see as contradictory thoughts and I would like to give you the opportunity to explain. Why is it wrong for the government to decide school cirriculums, to impose taxes, or to pass mandatory seatbelt laws because it is a sign that they are overreaching into people’s personal lives, but not wrong for them to dictate who forms a marriage contract? Your answer won’t sway my opinion, but would give me more insight into yours. Thanks.

When I was a teenager I slowly realized that my attractions and desires were towards men. I did not wake up one day, contrary to your beliefs, and say ‘I want to be gay’ – what an absurd and ultimately dangerous concept. I thought about switching as a teenager because of societal and peer pressures at the time. The idea I could change is equally absurd – for what? To fit your version of life?

Wonketeria:> I think, but OL’s reply is so esoteric that I have a hard time understanding it.

I just explained what the right to marry really is, and how it is based on our recognition of individual liberty, what it means to be humans and how humans procreate.

I don’t find that any more or less esoteric then the proposition of government oversight and handouts as its own end. Perhaps you can explain a bit more on this. For instance in reading your post I noted the following issues.

Legally recognizing the inherent rights of people of the same gender to marry does not help me or harm me.

I think you’ll find that gays tell each other they can’t get married far more than I or the law does. In fact, I believe it is the implicit “[a homosexual] cannot fully love someone of the other gender” that is behind Putney’s self assertions in light of this topic, his own definition of homosexuality that prevents him, and not the definition of marriage.

All the law says is that marriage is a right expressed that requires the other gender. Procreation is not an esoteric concept.

From the civil rights movement we recognize integration as the pathway to equality. So what is wrong with expecting one man and one woman in each marriage?

Is one man and one woman in each marriage going to harm you? Is that going to harm someone you know? Is that going to harm people you don’t know? I’d like to see this argument. I remember the segregationists of the 50′s arguing that having blacks and whites in each classroom was a violation of their identity. I’d be interested if your arguments mimic theirs at all.

The answer, by the way, is “No” it won’t harm anyone to expect one man and one woman in marriage. And it will help anyone who wishes to find out what marriage really is to find equality, and at the same time help children have the protection and recognition of their rights to their parentage and support from before their very inception.

Now, you tell me why that is so wrong.

It [neutering marriage] helps those people get access to the same laws that are currently granted to people of opposite gender who marry. Laws regarding[;] Community property[,] Health care decisions[,] Health insurance[.] It’s a pretty short list, but the implications of [...]

When I read that sentence do I see “homosexuals only” because that is what the legislation says. I see a much broader category in “same gender” than just homosexuals. Are homosexuals the only same-gender pair that wants or can be benefited by inheritance rights, et all? What about two sisters who ran away from abusive husbands who want to band together to raise their children together. What about an elderly couple who takes in a teenage mother from the street to help her with her children.

They are just as deserving of anything anyone else in the “same gender” category, but you seem to only see homosexuals and only care about homosexuals? I’d like to know. Are you just bigoted or hypocritical, neither or both?

How does allowing the two sisters who have no sexual interest whatsoever to marry to gain access to community property, etc… in the interest of their commitment and trust of each other harm your marriage?

I mean, look I’ll be honest. I think Putney and anyone should have a way of declaring someone they trust as a reciprocal beneficiary of these very items you suggest. Thats far more fair than what the senate voted to do with marriage.

Let marriage be marriage. Let gays be gay. We can co-exist with programs that meet the specific needs of both … and more.

How does allowing the two sisters who have no sexual interest whatsoever to marry to gain access to community property, etc… in the interest of their commitment and trust of each other harm your marriage?

It doesn’t, which is why I agree with this quote below:

I mean, look I’ll be honest. I think Putney and anyone should have a way of declaring someone they trust as a reciprocal beneficiary of these very items you suggest.

And currently, the most efficient and effective way of doing that is through a marriage contract.

Ideally, government would get out of “marriage” all-together, and everyone who wanted to declare reciprocal beneficiaries would have to rely on explicit legal contracts. That would help avoid many of the confusions that now arise, and serve as an excellent indicator of the other person’s level of commitment, because if you are ready and willing to sign a stack of POA’s and related documents and the other is not, then you know where they truly stand.

I think that is where the divergence in our thinking stems from. To me, “marriage” is a contract wherein two (or more) people declare publicly that they henceforth agree to share certain material benefits and obligations, including (but not limited to) perhaps bearing children and raising children. You seem to think there must be some “spritual” component necessarily attached to marriage and that is reliant on having two people of different gender.

As I’m typing, I’m forming an idea that the best solution where most people could get what they want (except those who just plain hate the idea of gays, lesbians and multi-gender people being allowed to live their lives in peace) would really be to explicitly separate the material/contractual component of marriage, calling that part “civil unions,” and specifially defined as a collection of certain legal rights shared between the signatories, and leave the term “marriage” to be defined as a “spritual” union under terms consistent with the participants’ beliefs.

The government, in this scenario, has the role of defining the terms of civil unions and requiring any and all who want legal protection for those unions to perform the same actions that are required for all the other kinds of legal contracts, and the term “marriage” gets sent back into the private sphere, where it belongs.

[Singapore (where I got married) has a system nearly like this. There is the state-sanctioned marriage, which creates the contract in the material world, and then those who desire it have their religious/cultural ceremonies some time after they have complied with the legal requirements, which includes a 30-day "cooling off" period after they register their intent to marry - which I suppose is inherited from a custom like the idea of "publishing the banns."]

Having this discussion has modified my thinking, see?

To expand and clarify a little:

A contract has five elements: 1. offer and acceptance (agreement) 2. consideration 3. an intention to create legal relations 4. legal capacity 5. formalities

In my scenario, anyone who wants to form a reciprocal beneficiary relationship with anyone else (same gender, different gender, two folks, four folks, 99 folks) who has legal capacity, would be required to set up a “civil union” contract, including terms of what to do in case of dissolution of the contract, if they want their “civil union” protected by the government. Once this contract is in place, it must be granted full faith and credit in every State and territory of the Union, exactly the same way your cell phone contract that you signed up for in Arizona is still in force when you move to NH.

“Marriage” on the other hand, is left entirely to the private realm – any person can describe their relationship as a “marriage” but no one else is required to call it that, any more than Christians are required to comply with the terms of Hindu prayers or Jews are required to follow the tenets of Scientology.

Whether you agree or not, is my meaning at least clear?

…honors the point of the original.

Perhaps I’m being dense, but I need your clarification again regarding what you are describing as the inexorable link between marriage and having kids.

I think I can see what you are getting at, but parts are still confusing me, and rather than continue without knowing exactly what you mean, I prefer to have it in your own words.

Thanks.

Gladly:

If you are so inclined, please expand your comments that you have been making that define marriage throughout your posts. Something along the lines of:

1. “Marriage is X.”

2. “The citizens, using the agency of government, are best served having laws that limit marriage to Y.”

3. “The successful operation of our democratic republic requires that rights of these people over here (categorized as A) be limited in this regard because the rights of those people over there (categorized as B) take precedence in this case, because of Z.”

I’ll respond in kind.

If neither one of us wants to spend time developing our theses to this level, we ought ot quit right now and “agree to disagree,” otherwise we’d just be talking past each other for the rest of our posts.
Fair enough?

1. “Marriage is [institutionalized mating].”
2. “The citizens, using the agency of government, are best served having laws that [explicitly focus] marriage to [encourage those engaged in the human mating practice to recognize the rights and responsibilities of all involved in said practice].”
On three, could you explain how meeting those needs with a specific program are taking precedent over another group, or is anyway limiting of the rights of others?
QED.