New Jersey embraces civil rights for all couples

[BVS]

If this were true, wouldn't black Americans, above all others, be sympathetic to your "fight for equality under the law." Yet this isn't the case. Support for same-sex marriage is LOWER among blacks and other minorities than the national average. Why is this?

Once again why do you let these things shape your thinking? So minorites can't discriminate as well?

 

[BVS]

I wonder if history and status quo had defined white males as second class citizens would INDY and Aussie still be such big supporters of history and status quo?

 

[AussieU2fanman]

I don't think it is something done right throughout the course of history. It has been used and abused by heterosexual couples for ages. People can even get married while completely inebriated.

Brittney Spears in Vegas.

I say, instead of focusing on WHO is getting married, why not consider WHY? People wanna marry out of love, whats so wrong with that? I don't understand why there is such a backlash against gay marriage but not one against the 10 minute quick-and-easy marriages that go down in the casinos. It happens all the time. Some people get drunk, get married, and wake up the next day not even remembering it all. Whats the traditional value in that? Why is that being ignored?

What can we do about that? It's their choice to abuse it, I certainly don't approve of it and it does disgust me. And I'm sure if homosexuals could marry, they would surcome to the same type of abuse of the system that us hetrosexuals do.
Just because hetrosexuals abuse the sacred right of marraige sometimes, it doesn't give credence to the argument of homosexual marriage.

 

[indra]

I wonder if history and status quo had defined white males as second class citizens would INDY and Aussie still be such big supporters of history and status quo?

don't forget heterosexual in there too.

 

[BVS]

don't forget heterosexual in there too.

I didn't want their heads to spin...

 

[redhotswami]

Just because hetrosexuals abuse the sacred right of marraige sometimes, it doesn't give credence to the argument of homosexual marriage.

Sure it does! Just like heterosexuals who want to marry out of love, there are homosexuals who want to marry out of love too. I'm just trying to say that the argument about tarnishing something that is sacred and traditional isn't really valid since, even though other people abuse it now, it still isn't tarnished and 2 people who are committed to one another will still get married.

 

[anitram]

I wonder if history and status quo had defined white males as second class citizens would INDY and Aussie still be such big supporters of history and status quo?

Don't take away their rights to enjoy the sanctity of marriage. Straight white men have it tough these days, what with the rest of us clamoring for equality.

 

[indra]

I didn't want their heads to spin...

Ah. But I do.

 

[BVS]

Just because hetrosexuals abuse the sacred right of marraige sometimes,

I think you just proved her point. (Man, you keep digging yourself in a hole)

You can't acknowledge the abuse and then keep repeating that is so sacred.

 

[AussieU2fanman]

I wonder if history and status quo had defined white males as second class citizens would INDY and Aussie still be such big supporters of history and status quo?

People are comparing these impertinent issues which share no similar ground apart from the fact they defined them also as 'tradional values' and they are now seen as wrong. Your assuming that because we've changed our outlook on blacks as second class citizens etc. etc., we must now let two gay people marry. Two completely dissimiar things, both have totally seperate issues surrounding them.

 

[BVS]

People are comparing these impertinent issues which share no similar ground apart from the fact they defined them also as 'tradional values' and they are now seen as wrong. Your assuming that because we've changed our outlook on blacks as second class citizens etc. etc., we must now let two gay people marry. Two completely dissimiar things, both have totally seperate issues surrounding them.

How are they different? They are both born that way. You're contradicting yourself now.

 

[AussieU2fanman]

I think you just proved her point. (Man, you keep digging yourself in a hole)

You can't acknowledge the abuse and then keep repeating that is so sacred.

Nobody has any control over how people abuse their marriage. How does that mitigate the sacredness of it? Because one person does a misdeed, its okay for eveybody else too?! Do you believe marriage is not sacred? Do you believe that because some drunken fukwits abuse it, it is okay to completely redefine it and just allow anyone to marry whoever they want and totally embellish it?

 

[AussieU2fanman]

If you're really into marrying your sister, go for it. Who am I to stand in the way of your true love?

Melon

Oh BS you think it's just as disgusting as everyone else here.

 

[redhotswami]

Nobody has any control over how people abuse their marriage. How does that mitigate the sacredness of it? Do you believe marriage is not sacred? Do you believe that because some drunken fukwits abuse it, it is okay to completely redefine it and just allow anyone to marry whoever they want and totally embellish it?

I know you weren't quoting me, but I would like to respond.

My point is, it IS still sacred, and will always be, because it is that beautiful eternal promise that 2 people want to share with one another. It is just those 2 people, no other human being in the outside world is in this marriage. Drunken fuckwits abuse it, but does that at all cheapen your bond? Of course not. So what if drunken fuckwits, homosexual couples, or anyone else marry. All that matters is your love for that other person. That is what the marriage is about anyway.

It does not lose it's intention or beauty.

 

[BVS]

Nobody has any control over how people abuse their marriage. How does that mitigate the sacredness of it? Do you believe marriage is not sacred? Do you believe that because some drunken fukwits abuse it, it is okay to completely redefine it and just allow anyone to marry whoever they want and totally embellish it?

I'm not saying because some abuse it that's the reason to redefine. I want it redefined in order to acheive equality, I know you aren't a big fan of that.

Marriage is only sacred between the two that got married and only remains as sacred as they keep it. Just like you admit, the fact that some abuse it, doesn't mean my marriage is less sacred. The same goes for if two men or two women got married the sacredness of my own isn't effected.

Take a look at your post and the inconsistancies and maybe you'll understand that.

 

[redhotswami]

I'm not saying because some abuse it that's the reason to redefine. I want it redefined in order to acheive equality, I know you aren't a big fan of that.

Marriage is only sacred between the two that got married and only remains as sacred as they keep it. Just like you admit, the fact that some abuse it, doesn't mean my marriage is less sacred. The same goes for if two men or two women got married the sacredness of my own isn't effected.

Take a look at your post and the inconsistancies and maybe you'll understand that.

Get out of my head BVS!

 

[AussieU2fanman]

I know you weren't quoting me, but I would like to respond.

My point is, it IS still sacred, and will always be, because it is that beautiful eternal promise that 2 people want to share with one another. It is just those 2 people, no other human being in the outside world is in this marriage. Drunken fuckwits abuse it, but does that at all cheapen your bond? Of course not. So what if drunken fuckwits, homosexual couples, or anyone else marry. All that matters is your love for that other person. That is what the marriage is about anyway.

It does not lose it's purpose or beauty.

But then again, removing any discrimination from marriage and just using the exclusive criteria of LOVE, and you're opening pandoras box. Animal marraiges, brother-sister marriages, brother-brother marraiges, you name it. Where do we stop?

 

[BVS]

Oh BS you think it's just as disgusting as everyone else here.

I think old people in bathing suits is discusting am I allowed to legislate against it?

 

[BVS]

But then again, removing any discrimination from marriage and just using the exclusive criteria of LOVE, and you're opening pandoras box. Animal marraiges, brother-sister marriages, brother-brother marraiges, you name it. Where do we stop?

Oh please, grow up? Have you ever heard of consent?

 

[AussieU2fanman]

I think old people in bathing suits is discusting am I allowed to legislate against it?

Are you implying that brother-sister marriages should be legistlated and you don't have any moral scruple with that?

 

[redhotswami]

But then again, removing any discrimination from marriage and just using the exclusive criteria of LOVE, and you're opening pandoras box. Animal marraiges, brother-sister marriages, brother-brother marraiges, you name it. Where do we stop?

Oh geez, you know animals don't have the same rights humans do. Some people even eat them so I don't even think that is even an issue here.

As for the siblings...I'm not talking about that kind of love. That is unrelated too.

 

[AussieU2fanman]

Oh please, grow up? Have you ever heard of consent?

Perhaps the animal marriage is pushing it a bit far.
Imagine a brother and sister which do both consent or a brother/brother. They both love eachother very much, what's wrong with them becoming married?

 

[AussieU2fanman]

This bigot is going to study for his engineering exams and try to segregate the error feedback loop from the rest of the transfer function so we can get a stable transient response from the system.

 

[redhotswami]

You have a lot more self control than I do. I've been neglecting my studies too, but this thread has been so addicting. Perhaps I should get on that.

Look forward to continuing this discussion some other time! Good luck on your exams!

 

[martha]

It may be useless to engage in a dual of wits with an unarmed man.

 

[melon]

If we want to talk about "traditional society structures," prehistoric tribal society was matriarchal (admired for their childbearing powers), homosexuals were in a mystical priestly class (whose same-sex attractions were seen as special gifts from the gods), and heterosexual men were little more than worker bees.

Ah...the good old days.

Melon

 

[BVS]

Are you implying that brother-sister marriages should be legistlated and you don't have any moral scruple with that?

No, I'm saying legislation needs logic, reasoning, it needs to serve the greater good...we don't base it on something one religion may say or some ICK FACTOR.

 

[BVS]

Perhaps the animal marriage is pushing it a bit far.
Imagine a brother and sister which do both consent or a brother/brother. They both love eachother very much, what's wrong with them becoming married?

How would you force the couple not to have kids?

Show me a brother that wants to marry his brother, just one...

 

[martha]

If we want to talk about "traditional society structures," prehistoric tribal society was matriarchal (admired for their childbearing powers), homosexuals were in a mystical priestly class (whose same-sex attractions were seen as special gifts from the gods), and heterosexual men were little more than worker bees.

Ah...the good old days.

 

[BVS]

This bigot is going to study for his engineering exams and try to segregate the error feedback loop from the rest of the transfer function so we can get a stable transient response from the system.

Does that require logic or reasoning?