:thumbs up: New York

[Asher]

This. Honestly, the adoption thing still seems like a canard to me--the rates of adoption are still pretty low among gay couples and not growing all that fast and absent children marriage seems kind of pointless to me.

I love that you don't see a problem with looking at the rates of gay adoption and extrapolating trends in the US.

Of course the adoption rates are low when most agencies refuse to let gay couples adopt. There's so many reasons to it that it's hard to know where to begin.

[MrFun]

TEH GAYS RECRUIT CHILDREN INTO BECOMING ******S!!

[Tupac Shakur]

Good NYT piece on all the time and effort Gov. Cuomo put into this...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/nyregion/the-road-to-gay-marriage-in-new-york.html

[Hauldren Collider]

I love seeing pwnage in action.

That's good because you get pwned in every single thread you start. Far as I'm concerned, "voters caring about it" clearly doesn't mean something is truly important. For instance, the fact that the Enquirer makes money demonstrates that people care about what it says.

Let's think about the pwning thing for a minute. Fun, you're at the very back of the intellectual bus. When you are right, it's a coincidence. Usually it's when parroting people who are much smarter than you who agree with you. You live in the biggest glass house on Poly. I think it's worth pointing out here that when it comes to gay rights I agree with you 90% of the way, and then you'd like to think I'm homophobic for the remaining 10%. Does that make any sense?

[Kuciwalker]

This has to be the least important issue Cuomo could possibly have taken up. New York

Holy **** you are a massive tool.

[Kuciwalker]

Which other Democratic agenda item would you prefer Cuomo have pushed, moron?

[DaShi]

You've lost this argument HC.

And this is just sad: "Usually it's when parroting people who are much smarter than you who agree with you." Since you're more guilty of this than anyone here.

[Kuciwalker]

That's a good question. An even better question is why they aren't trying to get their fiscal house in order like neighboring New Jersey.

See #81.

[Tupac Shakur]

I'm unwilling to indict the Democratic Party by implying they have no agenda items that would address the economic crisis.

[Kuciwalker]

I know that you're ruled by your emotions and struggle to think logically, but this is pretty idiotic even judged on the MrFun curve...

edit: I do, however, enjoy the irony of people who argue that allowing gays to marry won't have any major effect on society becoming outraged when someone agrees with them and draws the logical conclusion that allowing gays to marry is an unimportant issue.

This is actually a very cute bit of sleight-of-hand.

The argument is that allowing gay marriage won't have any transformative effect on society (or even more precisely, any negative transformative effect). Proponents do believe that it will have substantial consequences viz. it will make a lot of people much happier.

[Kuciwalker]

I'm unwilling to indict the Democratic Party by implying they have no agenda items that would address the economic crisis.

well played.

But if they adopted your rule - prioritizing legislation by how much effect they think it will have on the economy - do you really think you would like the results?

[Tupac Shakur]

Proponents do believe that it will have substantial consequences viz. it will make a lot of people much happier.

When did "making people happier" become an important priority of government?

But if they adopted your rule of prioritizing legislation by how much effect they think it will have on the economy - do you really think you would like the results?

I don't really care if they adopt my priorities or not. I was just pointing out that your brother had reason to think that same-sex marriage isn't an important issue, mainly because I didn't like Imran's emotional and hyperbolic response.

[Kuciwalker]

Making people happier is the only priority of government.

[Tupac Shakur]

Making people happier is the only priority of government.

I disagree. Not sure how we can really advance this debate, however.

[giblets]

IIRC someone on here claimed recently that the majority has the right to decide what the government does, so by that assumption if the majority of constituents wants the government to make people happier, then that becomes a obligation of the government.