New Jersey embraces civil rights for all couples

[Irvine511]

Kenny Chesney is gay?

So you want to compare gays to blacks under Jim Crow.
Point 1
The despicable laws that forbid marriage across color lines were intended to foster segregation and advance racial subordination and economic inferiority. Yes, as I've said, issues that you raise regarding benefits, taxes and insurance need to be addressed, but do you seriously think my objection to same-sex marriage is to keep you economically oppressed? Must not be working as the homosexual population as a whole has a higher than average standard of living does it not?

Point 2
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?

Point 3
Race is immaterial to wedlock, but sex--the duality of genders--has always been the basis for marriage and family structure.

the jury is out on Kenney Chesney, but Rene did divorce him for "fraud," though they remain good friends, apparently.

1. so you are in support of civil unions? that's what it seems like, and that's the most important thing, though i still wonder about the resistance to the word "marriage."

and the generally well-to-do nature of white male homosexuals who live in urban centers are not reflective of all homosexuals. think about it. it's usually those who are most economically advantaged who can sometimes literally afford to come out. and since many don't have children, they have as much disposable as any other childless couple.

2. well, Coretta Scott King is on our side, but i'd be typing for hours if i were to explore the entrenched homophobia in african-american culture that is literally killing young black men, but let's just say that all those churches have something to do with it.

3. that doesn't hold water -- 50 years ago they would have said that race is integral to marriage, that what would happen to the poor children of black fathers and white mothers? where would they fit in a segregated society? think about the little mulatto children! basically, you're saying that marriage is about penises and vaginas, the arguments that men and women "fit" together, and thusly we have the natural order of things.

and the world is also flat because that's what i can see.

 

[Irvine511]

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?

go back and read the beginning of the thread.

this was all very adequately addressed.

the comparisons are hugely insulting, and logically flawed.

 

[martha]

3. that doesn't hold water -- 50 years ago they would have said that race is integral to marriage

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/loving.html

I thought this was interesting.

God was even invoked!

Whatta surprise.

 

[Irvine511]

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

funniest comment so far.

i just laughed out loud.

 

[martha]

I wish it were mine. But I stole it.

 

[Irvine511]

I wish it were mine. But I stole it.

Oscar Wilde?

 

[INDY500]

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

And in these 29 pages or so, which point or post of YOURS are you most proud of? Which one did you put the most effort into? Your most "engaging" post.

Go ahead, just paste it.

 

[martha]

And in these 29 pages or so, which point or post of YOURS are you most proud of? Which one did you put the most effort into? Your most "engaging" post.

Go ahead, just paste it.

I wasn't referring to you. Did I hit a nerve?

 

[martha]

Oscar Wilde?

Robin Williams?

 

[AussieU2fanman]

Plagarising a quote in which one implies they have superior wit, how incredibly ironic.
Back to study.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Plagarising a quote in which one implies they have superior wit, how incredibly ironic.
Back to study.

I have to admit I found that a little ironic, also.

 

[INDY500]

I wasn't referring to you. Did I hit a nerve?

Yes, what was it? One of these?

Shut the fuck up about this

You bring this horseshit up every time and it has NOTHING to do with gay marriage. No matter how hard you and your bigoted pals try to align the two.

I'm sick of your shit on this. Really sick of it.

You're using logic and compassion, Irvine. These things won't work with this guy. You've tried it before, and yet he still brings the same thing up.

Eagerly awaiting answers.

or maybe

He can have his beliefs all he wants. Just like I can. And if I believe someone's full of shit, I gonna tell him.


Has AEON really answered Irvine yet?

Was the post about hiding behind the Bible all we're gonna get?

You weren't addressing me, I might indeed be on your ignore list, but please explain to me how denying to others what you demand for yourself isn't bigoted?

Perhaps

Oh. Now that I've asked you a direct question, you're sitting this one out.

Because he pisses me off.
Yep. I can so see how gays amd lesbians who want to commit to each other fit right in with these folks.

Yep. It's so crystal clear.

Oh, and I thought you were "sitting this one out."

one of my favorites

Indeed. Who knew that the folks who spit on the black schoolgirls 50 years ago would be considered bigots today?

I've been married to a man for 17 years. I have no children and married with the intention of never having children. Where to people like us fit in to your definition of marriage?

But why should your moral views prevail over the civil rights of others?

If I believe that Christians should be excluded from voting and other rights because they are different from me, do I have the right to legislate that belief?

Christians seem to think they do have the right to put their beliefs into legislation.

Somebody please answer this question.

I may have wedding gifts to return after 17 years of monogamous, heterosexual marriage.

Damn childlessness.
Especially when so many of these "moral", heterosexual lawmakers have been married more than one time. Great way to "protect" against incursions by the gay folks.

Hasn't this been asked in every thread like this?

And hasn't it been unanswered in every thread like this?
And would someone please update me on the state of my intentionally childless marriage?!

Lots of questions, no answers.

You're right. It was INDY and 80s who hide behind the kids to make their points.


I'll wait for them to answer my question. I suspect I'll be waiting for some time.

Which is it? Ok? Or won't somebody think of the children?
Don't put it past them.


Didn't that lovely state of Virginia try to specifically ban gay couples from owning property together, while allowing any other sort of non-married patnerships to go ahead?

And aren't these two reasons the only real reasons for denying

any kind of legislative approval?

And, once again, "His reasons" are not enough to deny rights to people. They just aren't.

AEON is completely comfortable ignoring questions


But doesn't Jesus say somewhere that it's ok to go ahead and deny and discriminate in His name?

He must, because so many of His followers are so convinced that it's fine to do so.

Quanity rather than quality seems to be the mission.

So you're protecting those who won't make decisions you agree with?

And you don't like it when people call you smug?

So gay married people won't know the "healing power of Christ." So how come this is any of your business? Unless you somehow feel it's become your job to protect them from their evil decisions?

And if this isn't smug self-righteousness disguised as Christianity!

Which brings us up to today. Would it be one of those?

 

[BVS]

That was a lot of work, for what? Nothing...

 

[INDY500]

That was a lot of work, for what? Nothing...

Wanna play?
Show me which post you're most proud of. The one in which you connected a series of statements together to establish a proposition rather than just contradicting someone.

 

[AEON]

You know - I find it odd that almost all of the name calling and hostility seems to be coming from those that support gay marriage.

Seriously, read through this thread from beginning to end. Amazing.

Anyone have a theory as to why?

 

[AEON]

Plagarising a quote in which one implies they have superior wit, how incredibly ironic.
Back to study.

Now THAT was actually witty. I try not to cheer as from a peanut gallery - but that was a good one Aussie.

 

[BVS]

You know - I find it odd that almost all of the name calling and hostility seems to be coming from those that support gay marriage.

Seriously, read through this thread from beginning to end. Amazing.

Anyone have a theory as to why?

Oh please. Have you forgotten all the people who've equated homosexuality with disease, polygamy, sex with animals?

If I read through this thread your name would pop up on that list quite a bit. It would also come up on the list of people who've repeatedly ignored questions asked of you...

 

[BVS]

Wanna play?
Show me which post you're most proud of. The one in which you connected a series of statements together to establish a proposition rather than just contradicting someone.

yeah, because that would be fun. What's the point of us going back through each other's posts?

 

[INDY500]

yeah, because that would be fun. What's the point of us going back through each other's posts?

To see who's engaging in honest debate and who's just tossing rocks from the weeds. As for dodging questions...look at Martha's posts. They almost all end in questions marks. Don't you guys have any answers?
And YOU seem to be avoiding a VERY simple question. The best rational for same-sex marriage posted by you in 30 pages of posts.

 

[BVS]

And YOU seem to be avoiding a VERY simple question. The best rational for same-sex marriage posted by you in 30 pages of posts.

What, status quo?

I've answered every argument posted, so please point it out to me...

 

[AEON]

Oh please. Have you forgotten all the people who've equated homosexuality with disease, polygamy, sex with animals?

I don't think I ever mentioned anything about sex with animals. Actually, I'm quite certain I did nothing of the sort.

About disease - I said we are ALL diseased. It is called original sin.

About polygamy - I was using it as an example of another type of marriage outside of "one man and one woman." I have also explained my intention on using this comparison numerous times. And none of it was meant to be insulting.

BVS - you really do seem rather hostile. Seriously. Relax a bit.

 

[INDY500]

What, status quo?

I've answered every argument posted, so please point it out to me...

Sorry, I missed that. Which was your most salient post in favor of same-sex marriage? Or if you're just humble, Martha's.

 

[sulawesigirl4]

Hello everyone,

A friendly note from your moderators...please keep it civil. Everyone take a deep breath and try to remember that there are real flesh and blood people behind the screen and that they have real feelings and valid emotions. It's understandable that discussions like this draw strong opinion, but please try to treat people with the same respect and civility as you would if you were face to face. OK?

Thanks!

 

[BVS]

I don't think I ever mentioned anything about sex with animals. Actually, I'm quite certain I did nothing of the sort.

That post wasn't strictly about you.

BVS - you really do seem rather hostile. Seriously. Relax a bit.

Don't confuse me being passionate with hostility. Excuse me if I get upset with people using God to justify their own prejudices...

 

[BVS]

Sorry, I missed that. Which was your most salient post in favor of same-sex marriage?

Try equality. I know it's not a popular stance in today's society, for we all want to feel superior to someone.

Or if that doesn't work, how about the real simple, WHO THE HELL IS IT HURTING?

Pick one...

 

[INDY500]

A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
A: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!
Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
(short pause)
A: No it isn't.
M: It is.
A: Not at all.
M: Now look.
A: (Rings bell)

I'm afraid my 5 minutes is up.

 

[BVS]

That's your return? Wow, well I guess if you have mob rule behind you, you don't really need to debate.

 

[yolland]

All right INDY, I think you've made your point, and with more than a hint of the same tone you're complaining about yourself. Not that I don't understand your frustration.

It's hard enough to keep threads on this topic civil even when the bulk of the responses are carefully thought through--it's pretty much impossible when people slide into rapid-fire exchanges of ridicule and smartass one-liners. If that's all there is left to "discuss," then there's really no point in this thread continuing.

And this tactic of browbeating people for ignoring questions is really getting old. When threads move this fast, it's easy to miss a question whose importance might not have seemed that central to you to begin with. If you really want a question anwered, please quote it and directly re-address it to the person you want an answer from, rather than jumping to conclusions about why they haven't and using that as a battering ram.

 

[freya]

About disease - I said we are ALL diseased. It is called original sin.

Ummm, no. Your god, your sin, not mine.

(and this is indra, but I'm writing a journal entry at the same time and am logged in as freya)

 

[BVS]

And this tactic of browbeating people for ignoring questions is really getting old. When threads move this fast, it's easy to miss a question whose importance might not have seemed that central to you to begin with. If you really want a question anwered, please quote it and directly re-address it to the person you want an answer from, rather than jumping to conclusions about why they haven't and using that as a battering ram.

Well I apologize, but I've repeated my questions more than once, and I've pointed out the fact that I was waiting as well. There really wasn't more I could have done short of PMing the person, and honestly I don't feel like I should have to do that. The questions were pertinent and no where close to the off topic stearings this poster took on other areas of this discussion. So honestly I'm not sure what else I could have done. I realize no one is required to answer the questions I pose to them, although I think it's hard to keep debate honest if you continually ignore certain questions.

But once again I apologize.