Gay marriage bill passed by Senate

Union Leader ^ | April 29, 2009 | Tom Fahey

[DesertRenegade]

What in the world is happening to our society? Every society that has embraced homosexuality and pedophilia (like the ancient Greeks and Romans) has collapsed soon after.

[DuncanWaring]

... any two individuals have a right to join together in a civil marriage.

Why just two?

Can I marry my mother? My father? My daughter?

If not, why not?

[OCCASparky]

NH PING!

Damn libs have made turned "Live Free or Die" from a motto into a punchline.

FreepMail me if you want on or off this list.

[Past Your Eyes]

That idiot Deb Reynolds is (sick sound) my senator. When she says her people want it, I’m sure than means she went over to the bar at the Woodstock Inn where all the queers hang out and took a poll. Maybe she asked Ray Burton. He spends a lot of time there with his “friends”.

[OCCASparky]

I know Ray Buckey was sure pulling hard for it (no pun intended).

[scripter]

Can I marry my mother? My father? My daughter? If not, why not?

Excellent questions indeed.

[Commander X]

I think the end times are here!

[andy58-in-nh]

As with the people who comprise them, every society is born with an expiration date. Eventually they wear out and can no longer defend themselves against the ravages of time and nature. I think we’re on the Back Nine.

[mkleesma]

This is not the same state I moved to back in the early 90’s, having escaped socialism in Canada.
I don't recognize this place anymore, so I'm packing up the family and getting out. Heading down South, where conservatives are still welcome.

[FreedomFerret]

State by State, we’re falling faster and faster...

[newguy357]

... any two individuals have a right to join together in a civil marriage.

Why just two?

This needs to be asked again and again. It is mind-boggling that they have the gall to keep saying "any two individuals," which is entirely arbitrary once you've decided to throw away millennia-old definitions.

I had a girl at work once ask me (a few years ago) why I opposed gay marriage. When I pointed out that you couldn't legitimately limit it to two people if we allow gay marriage, she said, "Well, traditionally marriage has been between two people." To which I replied the obvious "traditionally it has been between a man and a woman." Pause.... ... ... "Good point."

[DuncanWaring]

The homosexual faction claims they have a “right” to marry.

Marriage has never been a “right”.

It’s been an obligation undertaken by two people prior to engaging in activity which might reasonably be expected to produce offspring, in order to maximize the liklihood that said offspring will survive to the age of self-sufficiency.

No activity by any homosexual couple can reasonably be expected to produce offspring; the concept of homosexual “marriage” is null and void.

[chimera]

Why just two people? If you're going to throw out ages-old conventions, why limit marriage to just between two people? Why not let you marry your dog, or a sheep, or a goat, or a horse? If anything goes, why not?

Throw it all right back in their ugly faces. Make them tell you why not these things if they're going to play the "Why not?" game on gay marriage.

[LibLieSlayer]

NH... “Live under satan or die”.

LLS

[rhinohunter]

Heading down South, where conservatives are still welcome.

Nice thought, but it is only a matter of time before SCOTUS "discovers" a right to gay marriage in the US Constitution and imposes it nationwide. I suspect it will happen sometime before the "fresh prince of bill ayres" leaves office.

[Antoninus]

Sen. Matthew Houde, D-Lebanon, said many younger voters in the state have already concluded that same-sex marriage is acceptable, and are waiting for lawmakers to catch up to them. “This is not a question of ‘if’ for me. It’s a question of ‘when.’ We should be eager to be on the right side of this issue,” Houde said.

You'll notice this exact talking point has been showing up on FR a lot lately.

Mark well the crypto-trolls who use it....

[longtermmemmory]

this is no compromise.

this is just American Bar Association doctrine doublespeak.

they want to make all marriage a “civil union” so it can be defined an limited by legislative determination. Marriage in the traditional context is OUTSIDE of legislative limitations and is broadly construed in the laws.

This is just the ABA’s effort to remove marriage from the legal domain. IOW no marriage under the law just these sham civil unions regardless of you personal orgasm preferences.

[windsorknot]

The Highest Court is not of this earth, and it will never recognize homosexual "marriages".

[OCCASparky]

I think we’re on the Back Nine.

Back 9? Try the 19th, having a cold one while the whole place burns down and goes apes**t around us.