Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You are right, but some overly-sensitive stubborn ideologues on the left have a different perspective. They believe that it is our objective to oppose gay rights, but the truth is that is not the case. Our cause has to be to promote equal rights, but to also realize that while civil unions are unique to same-sex couples, marriage is unique to a man and a woman. It's not religious, its just common sense. Luckily, we have a Governor who agrees, and a majority of Americans agree, they are just scared to in polls because then they would be accused of being bigoted.
please stop, you're embarrassing yourself. if it's supposed to be about equal rights, why are you promoting segregation then? we should all live under the same law if it is applied equally. you might as well tell them to get rid of all the civil rights legislation that is in place to send america back to the 1700s.
as it has been said earlier in this thread, civil unions are not EQUAL to marriages under state law and most importantly federal law. do your research.
and once again, your opinion doesn't constitute as fact. the fact is that the law is promoting segregation based off of a person's characteristics which isn't harming anybody. being gay isn't harming anybody. being straight isn't harming anybody either even though if you want to get all smart, mr. smartone, you would have to explain all the unwanted pregnancies that have lead to abortions (which i am pro choice by the way), all the babies that have been sent off to the foster care system to be screwed off to society depending on who are their parents, the parents that abuse the children that they don't want, and even the women that die while giving birth. yeah, you want to talk about homosexuality hurting people yet heterosexuality does too. yeah, homosexuality doesn't bring kids to the world but at the same time, heterosexuality doesn't ensure that kids will grow up to be normal, productive, law abiding, loving human beings.
sorry but if you want to actually prove something, how about you arguing against my point with something i cannot counter with? as far as i'm concerned, all you guys that disapprove of gay marriage are doing a really bad job with backing up your position.
sorry but if you want to actually prove something, how about you arguing against my point with something i cannot counter with? as far as i'm concerned, all you guys that disapprove of gay marriage are doing a really bad job with backing up your position.
yeah, you are doing a brilliant job countering all the anti-gay marriage folk by yelling at them how they are evil bigots. great strategy! you really put us in our places.
im somewhat torn between my more libertarian side of let everyone do what they want and pay for their own actions, and my socially conservative side that says that there is a better way to do things and society should promote that way. however, neither of those beliefs allows for gay marriage. i dont see any reason so support behavior that i feel is bad for society.
If you are indeed libertarian then you would realize that your personal opinion about social matters, is just that, your personal opinion. You cannot advocate for the government to be out of peoples lives and as minimized as possible while simultaneously arguing that the government should have a role in reinforcing what you perceive to be cultural and social norms that appeal to you. Outside of the actions of another causing harm to you, or restricting your ability to live your life the way you choose, then they should be free to do as they please. That is the libertarian position.
You come off as immensely hypocritical to be arguing for zero government involvement in most areas, while simultaneously expecting the government to get involved in legislating what is the most private and personal aspects of peoples lives.
I would challenge you to remove your hypocrisy by proving that same-sex couples sharing equal rights or even using the word marriage at all levels of government causes you personal harm or restricts your ability to live your life as you see fit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DFBonnett
Bigotry? Explain how some guy slamming his male parts into his buddy's back passage isn't deviancy and how pointing out this fact constitutes bigotry. You seem always to revert to ad hominem attacks when confronted with irrefutable facts. I consider the source of the attack and it's neither much nor worthy of further response. BTW, it's not YOUR thread.
Is it deviancy when a man and woman engage in anal sex? Is it deviancy when a husband and wife play with toys, or engage in S&M behavior?
Am I to assume that you would welcome government involvement and legislation to oversee and define what is and isn't acceptable in our bedrooms?
The problem with your arguments and those of some others is that you can prove no basis that taking a live and let live approach will cause you personal harm. The other issue is that you claim "irrefutable" facts, facts which sadly are just your opinion, which is quite open to be attacked by people with a differing opinion.
So, I challenge you to provide the "irrefutable fact" that states that same-sex relationships are by their definition deviant. You can also go a step further and explain to me how a same-sex couple having the same rights you have or even using the word marriage inflicts personal harm upon you, or violates your rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by the nation is still angry
please stop, you're embarrassing yourself. if it's supposed to be about equal rights, why are you promoting segregation then? we should all live under the same law if it is applied equally. you might as well tell them to get rid of all the civil rights legislation that is in place to send america back to the 1700s.
as it has been said earlier in this thread, civil unions are not EQUAL to marriages under state law and most importantly federal law. do your research.
We have already been over this one and I thought you had acquiesced to my legal explanations of why the concept of equal rights, simply under a different term, does not really meet the legal definition of the issues with "separate but equal". That term is being thrown around as a buzzword do to the images it conjures, despite this being a rather different debate.
The fact of the matter is that civil unions, where granted, do in fact confer all of the same rights that are enjoyed by married couples with the exception being those at the federal level. There is not a single right at the state level in NJ possessed by a married heterosexual couple that is not also possessed by a homosexual couple under a civil union. This is the simple fact of the matter. Calling the homosexual civil union a marriage will confer no greater rights on that couple than what they already possess. Even if NJ chose to grant the term marriage to those unions, it would have zero impact at the federal level and not change the portability when going to a different state.
Ultimately, there are two debates happening within this thread and you as a strong advocate for your position are mixing the two.
Some posters do not believe that same-sex couples should have any recongition at all, basically they should not have any of the rights of married couples.
Other posters believe that same-sex couples should have full and equal rights, but that the term marriage should not be applied to those relationships.
In this case, I think the first group do deserve some of your vitriol as they are advocating to actually deny equal rights. The second group is harder to frame. They do not want to deny any rights, but they feel that the word marriage has a specific definition and that applies to a relationship between a man and a woman.
In that case, I think the people of the second group do deserve to have their opinions counted and that is exactly what just happened in NJ. This is why I have consistently been asking, why is the word so important when the debate is about rights, rights that same-sex couples in NJ already possess?
You will never sway the opinion of the first group. They feel that homosexuality is wrong, just as strongly as you feel it is right. When addressing them, the debate should simply remain focused on legal matters of equal rights and opportunities. Leave it to them to prove how you being gay effects them in anyway, they can't. So, they are entitled to their opinion, which yes, is bigoted.
However, that leaves the second group. The group that does not want to deny anything to anyone, they just feel strongly about the word, that one is a harder one to address. Their opinion is not one of legality, but simply definition. I do think that they have a right to have their concerns over the use of the word marriage heard. This has been my issue with the debate in the country for a long time. The harder the GLBT community presses for use of the word marriage, the more opponents they have. Drop that requirement and the path to truly equal rights becomes much easier to achieve. Afterall, this is about rights, correct?
If you are indeed libertarian then you would realize that your personal opinion about social matters, is just that, your personal opinion. You cannot advocate for the government to be out of peoples lives and as minimized as possible while simultaneously arguing that the government should have a role in reinforcing what you perceive to be cultural and social norms that appeal to you. Outside of the actions of another causing harm to you, or restricting your ability to live your life the way you choose, then they should be free to do as they please. That is the libertarian position.
im not sure why you jumped on where i said "libertarian" and then ignored the next part where i said im torn between that view and a more socially conservative view. to be honest, i feel it was easier being libertarian when i didnt have a daughter. when its just you, you only need to worry about what impact gays getting married will have on your life (which is probably going to be very limited). but now i feel i have a greater interest in society moving forward being a healthy environment for kids to grow up safely and in healthy relationships. i think homosexual marriage is a part of a breakdown in values in a society that opens up to a general decline in everyone's quality of life. if nobody cares what anybody else does and nobody has any values that they hold in esteem, then there will be a general decline in values and what will be acceptable will continue to slide into the wrong direction.
i wouldnt want the government forcing people into certain relationships, but i dont see any reason to legitimize relationships that are bad for society.
im not sure why you jumped on where i said "libertarian" and then ignored the next part where i said im torn between that view and a more socially conservative view. to be honest, i feel it was easier being libertarian when i didnt have a daughter. when its just you, you only need to worry about what impact gays getting married will have on your life (which is probably going to be very limited). but now i feel i have a greater interest in society moving forward being a healthy environment for kids to grow up safely and in healthy relationships. i think homosexual marriage is a part of a breakdown in values in a society that opens up to a general decline in everyone's quality of life. if nobody cares what anybody else does and nobody has any values that they hold in esteem, then there will be a general decline in values and what will be acceptable will continue to slide into the wrong direction.
i wouldnt want the government forcing people into certain relationships, but i dont see any reason to legitimize relationships that are bad for society.
The snarky response to what you said is, what if your daughter ends up being gay? There is obviously a possibility of that being the case, just ask Dick Cheney. If your views are strengthened by a desire to foster a certain environment for your daughter, would your views then change if your daughter ended up not fitting into the mold that you want? Could you deny equal rights and shun your daughter if she was gay and didn't fit into your vision of what society should promote?
If you answer yes, that you would shun her and deny her those rights, then how great of a father are you really to be willing to throw your child away over something so trivial?
If you answer no, then you are left with the conundrum of how really strong are your values and opinions? If exception can be made for your child to your views, then why not for others?
There are plenty of parents who shared your views that are now struggling with these questions. What happens when my child simply doesn't fit into the mold I created for them?
Even if we let slide the concept that gays cannot create healthy relationships and environments for children to grow up in, are they really less healthy then other dominant forms of child raising? Everyone will say that two parent households are better than single parent households. Yet, we have an ever increasing number of children raised by single parents. Is it not logical that a two parent gay family could indeed provide a better environment then a single parent family? I personally believe they can provide everything a heterosexual household can, but certainly you must believe that they are at the very least better than single parent households. If you do agree with that, then your argument is actually reversed as allowing gays to form fully legally recognized households and families, we may actually be strengthening the family foundation of society.
On the values piece, that is where it becomes a hypocritical argument. Whose values are we going to instill as the ones that should be followed? This is a very diverse country with diverse value and belief systems. In fact, one could consider diversity and the respect of diversity an inherent American value.
Indeed when it comes to values, they are so divergent that we must inherently take the position of respecting all values as long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others. Within these values I place lifestyle and religion.
When you raise a child, you should raise them within your own value system as best you can, while teaching them tolerance and respect for the values of others. Divergent values do not lessen your impact on raising your daughter within the value system that you choose. However, your insistence on creating some sort of "value standard" may interfere with the right of another parent to raise their child within theirs.
please stop, you're embarrassing yourself. if it's supposed to be about equal rights, why are you promoting segregation then? we should all live under the same law if it is applied equally. you might as well tell them to get rid of all the civil rights legislation that is in place to send america back to the 1700s.
as it has been said earlier in this thread, civil unions are not EQUAL to marriages under state law and most importantly federal law. do your research.
and once again, your opinion doesn't constitute as fact. the fact is that the law is promoting segregation based off of a person's characteristics which isn't harming anybody. being gay isn't harming anybody. being straight isn't harming anybody either even though if you want to get all smart, mr. smartone, you would have to explain all the unwanted pregnancies that have lead to abortions (which i am pro choice by the way), all the babies that have been sent off to the foster care system to be screwed off to society depending on who are their parents, the parents that abuse the children that they don't want, and even the women that die while giving birth. yeah, you want to talk about homosexuality hurting people yet heterosexuality does too. yeah, homosexuality doesn't bring kids to the world but at the same time, heterosexuality doesn't ensure that kids will grow up to be normal, productive, law abiding, loving human beings.
Civil unions and domestic partnership laws, if implemented and enforced properly, can ensure that homosexuals are treated equally and we need to implement and enforce those laws properly. The issue here is really society's view of something. Society has to view gays as equal with rights, but the institution of marriage is between one man and one woman, and we must keep it that way. My view on this does not stem from a religious viewpoint, but a cultural one. You are entitled to disagree, but by assuming those who disagree with are all bigots, well, that does not make it so. Civil rights for all must ensure equal opportunity for all, but to compare gay rights to civil rights is the equivalent of giving Jerusalem to atheists as opposed to giving atheists their own capital, which by the way atheists have not asked for. The point is, we have fair laws in this state, and we need to enforce those laws and keep them fair.
Explain how some guy slamming his male parts into his buddy's back passage isn't deviancy and how pointing out this fact constitutes bigotry.
Wow!
I thought that this was supposed to be a family-friendly forum.
However, now with this extremely graphic language, I have a feeling that this thread will be locked down.
But, just so that we all know what level of expertise we are dealing with-- Can you please let us know how you came to be so expert on the topic of gay sex practices?
When you describe your actions that were related to gaining this knowledge, please don't give us a graphic description of how you acquired this knowledge.
Just use clinical terms, please.
Last edited by Retriever; 02-23-2012 at 05:06 PM..
I am sorry to hear that Governor Christie vetoed the same sex marriage bill. He has positioned himself on the wrong side of history, just like most Republicans do with this issue. I hope in the future there will be new leadership that will pass same sex marriage in New Jersey. It's a shame, that even though the majority of New Jersey people supported the bill, one person can completely cease its progress. The people of NJ need to veto CHRISTIE!
There is no way to know for sure that Christie has "positioned himself on the wrong side of history." That's just rhetoric.
It's a shame, that even though the majority of New Jersey people supported the bill,
Where is the evidence for this? And if it's true, why won't the Dem Senate put it to a vote? I, as a citizen, want to vote on such an important piece of legistlation -- a truly radical piece of legislation, in fact.
The snarky response to what you said is, what if your daughter ends up being gay? There is obviously a possibility of that being the case, just ask Dick Cheney. If your views are strengthened by a desire to foster a certain environment for your daughter, would your views then change if your daughter ended up not fitting into the mold that you want? Could you deny equal rights and shun your daughter if she was gay and didn't fit into your vision of what society should promote?
If you answer yes, that you would shun her and deny her those rights, then how great of a father are you really to be willing to throw your child away over something so trivial?
your entire premise is absolutely ridiculous because i have never said anything about shunning gays. all im saying is that we shouldnt hold their union equal to the union of a man and a woman. i dont hate gays, i dont want them abused or ridiculed. but i do believe their behavior is a defect of some sort and being gay isnt as good as being heterosexual.
i will raise my child with my values and i will vote with my values. i guess if enough people voting share my values, then we will have a better society, in my opinion. if people dont vote that way, ill do what i can to protect my family.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
yeah, homosexuality doesn't bring kids to the world but at the same time, heterosexuality doesn't ensure that kids will grow up to be normal, productive, law abiding, loving human beings.
