New Jersey embraces civil rights for all couples

[BVS]

Actually, I think there probably is a correlation.

Between Walmarts and unwed pregancies? Yeah you're probably right.

 

[AEON]

Between Walmarts and unwed pregancies? Yeah you're probably right.

 

[INDY500]

Jeepers. This is the fourth time I've asked politely and no one's done it yet.

Could it be that people have no answer to what yolland posted?

If you agree with Yolland's post so much, if it sums up all your thoughts and reflects your sentiments so succinctly -- if it took the words right out of your mouth....why didn't you take the time and effort to deliver such a post?

Frankly, I'd be a little embarrassed if my knowledge of the issue and debating skills were so wanting that "the moderator" had to step in to "deliver the final word" for me.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

That's some pretty piss poor "science", but I don't expect anything different from the freerepublic.com.

Free Republic

I feel sorry for the people there actually.

 

[A_Wanderer]

That's some pretty piss poor "science", but I don't expect anything different from the freerepublic.com.

It shows that causation and correlation can be confused at times.

 

[BVS]

It shows that causation and correlation can be confused at times.

I think it shows people can be confused most of the time...

 

[BVS]

If you agree with Yolland's post so much, if it sums up all your thoughts and reflects your sentiments so succinctly -- if it took the words right out of your mouth....why didn't you take the time and effort to deliver such a post?

Frankly, I'd be a little embarrassed if my knowledge of the issue and debating skills were so wanting that "the moderator" had to step in to "deliver the final word" for me.

Are you just bowing out of actually discussing the subject and resort to personally attacking folks?

 

[yolland]

Frankly, I'd be a little embarrassed if my knowledge of the issue and debating skills were so wanting that "the moderator" had to step in to "deliver the final word" for me.

I'm not a mouthpiece for anyone, thanks, and my own opinions on the subject are ones I've been turning over for two decades now. I don't take stances on a subject based on which side I think most needs debating "help"--I say what I personally think just like anyone else, and that's why I come here to begin with just like you.

Besides the correlation=causation error A_W and BVS already mentioned, a quick glance at the last several EU Labour Force Surveys suggests a problem with extrapolating from one country's data to make universal assumptions in this case. As of 2004, 31.6% of all births in the EU were outside of marriage (the Netherlands was at 32%). The member countries with the highest proportion of out-of-wedlock births were Estonia (58%), Sweden (55%), Latvia (45%), Denmark (45%) and France (45%), none of which recognize gay marriage (only Belgium, Spain and the Netherlands do)--in fact, Latvia has a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman, while Estonia has one pending. Furthermore, 67% of all EU households in 2004 were without children; the highest rates were in Finland (76%), Germany (75%), Denmark (74%) and Austria (70%)--again none of them countries which recognize gay marriage. If you're looking for a foolproof way to reverse these trends, a better route would be to go back to compulsory arranged marriages and the illegalization of divorce and birth control.

As far as BeyondMarriage goes, from the way Kurtz's article made it sound, I expected to find a gleeful pack of debauched New Age crunchies clamoring for the sacralization of group orgies among senior citizens. Instead, it's calling for availability of government benefits for a wide range of support arrangements which fall outside the traditional definition of family. Seeing what the cost of decent daycare, elder care and plain old insurance is like in this country for pretty much anyone, happily married nuclear family or not, and how little headway we've made towards addressing even that, I see this all as a wistful pipe dream anyhow. But if Kurtz wants to titillate himself with the thought that these folks represent the tip of some politically potent iceberg gleefully lurking in wait for their chance to foment cultural anarchy and demographic ruin, well, c'est la vie. Nothing like a good scapegoat for heterosexual couples' failures to build lasting marriages and stable families.

 

[Irvine511]

Nothing like a good scapegoat for heterosexual couples' failures to build lasting marriages and stable families.

while the "ick factor" might provide the motivation, the above is what provides the rationalization.

i find it funny to revisit Murphy Brown territory.

sorry i've been out all day, ker-azy day at work, and i'm on the road for the next week, so it's been a good thread, all, and it's been refreshing to see that, aside from one's own individualistic interpretation of scripture, there's no secular evidence against the legalization of marriage equality beyond the simple prejudice of tradition.

 

[BVS]

aside from one's own individualistic interpretation of scripture, there's no secular evidence against the legalization of marriage equality beyond the simple prejudice of tradition.

True.

People will use religion, but then when you point out that we don't live in a theocracy, their scripture may in fact be misinterpreted, and the hypocricy of not being consistent; they will try another angle.

So next is status quo and tradition, and that holds about as much water as a colander.

Then they will reach to some psedo-science that equates homosexual marriage with the rise in male pattern baldness and earthquakes in Hawaii...

 

[martha]

Frankly, I'd be a little embarrassed if my knowledge of the issue and debating skills were so wanting that "the moderator" had to step in to "deliver the final word" for me.

 

[melon]

Thanks for proving the point.

Since your comprehension skills must be failing, allow me to repost the part (in large print, in case your eyesight is failing too) that you were supposed to take from it:

Because, apparently, conservatives can start talking about incest, polygamy, and bestiality in the same breath as "gay marriage," and *not* think it to be as insulting as it would be to equate interracial marriage with incest, polygamy, and bestiality.

I'm sorry, but it is. And it's frustrating to argue on that kind of foundation, when it's built on nothing but mindnumbing irrationality that no amount of evidence in the world seems to make you budge from.

While we're at it, why don't we argue that...

"When the races mix, where does the slippery slope end?"

Because that's precisely the kind of argument that racists had in the 20th century. And I'm less romantic about the idea of integration than history might be. I think that most genuine supporters of segregation never changed their minds, and spent their very last irrational breath cursing the very existence of black people. I hear this is still the case in some parts of the Deep South too.

Frankly, when I read all the homophobic nonsense in this thread (which can be debunked by merely having a gay person as a close friend), that's what I'm reminded of here. And I'm sure this will happen again. As the bigots grow old and die, the world will finally be more and more free of prejudice.

If you need a little assistance in the future, I'll be happy to oblige.

Melon

 

[martha]

8 more posts till the thread is closed!

 

[indra]

Then they will reach to some psedo-science that equates homosexual marriage with the rise in male pattern baldness and earthquakes in Hawaii...

Damn you! Now I will never look at bald men the same way again.

 

[melon]

Yolland offered some fresh insights into the Pharisees a few months back. I now see statements like this as insulting to Jews.

Oh I see. So now you actually care whether statements actually insult someone?

Let me clue you in on something:

If you bring up incest, polygamy, and bestiality in a thread on gay marriage, you might as well call a black person a "ni**er" in front of their face. That's how blatantly insulting it is to the gay community.

But it's good to know that your comprehension skills work when you want them to.

I only wish I had their sense of devotion - although I obviously disagree with their conclusions about the Messiah Christ had a problem with many of them who were more concerned with appearing righteous instead of actually being righteous. To Him, many lacked a genuine love for God and His children…especially His children (hint hint).

Did I say once that I "hate" any of His children? No, I merely have the righteous anger of Jesus Christ in my heart. Whosoever oppresses the least of Jesus' children deserves to be the target of such anger.

Nicodemus is a great example how even a scholarly, well-intentioned believer can miss some of God’s most simple teachings. But Nicodemus apparently left his mind open enough to eventually change it.

It gives me hope for your future.

Melon

 

[melon]

8 more posts till the thread is closed!

Let's see how many I can fill up singlehandedly.

Melon

 

[Irvine511]

i do think that there are many people in here who would benefit greatly from knowing gay people, and seeing their relationships and understanding that they are every bit as magical, maddening, euphoric, depressing, messy, and human as any heterosexual relationships. homosexuality is EXACTLY the same as heterosexuality.

i find it odd that people who will wax about man's essential spiritual nature and metaphysical relationship to the incarnation of a diety, and then turn around and reduce marriage to penises and vaginas.

so, yes, i do think it comes down to simple prejudice. not hateful prejudice, not spiteful prejudice, but ignorant prejudice.

go meet some gay people.

no, that's not me and Memphis

 

[Irvine511]

i also want to toss out the slippery slope argument in the other direction -- when we say that the races can marry, what's next? if they say that race doesn't matter, are they going to say that gender doesn't matter either?

keep marriage traditional!

 

[martha]

no, that's not me and Memphis

 

[melon]

Opinions, one line or otherwise.

If "heteros" (since they seem to take offense to being called "breeders." But hey...it wasn't me who said that marriage was all about making babies...) are willing to call their conjugal partner a "civil union," legally, I'm more than willing to accept a wide-scale version of domestic partnership.

However, just to clue you in on it, the gay community isn't like an extra special episode of "The Golden Girls." We're as much capable of love as the penis/vagina equivalent. I'm not about to accept "separate but equal" treatment, merely because you want to feel superior.

Unless everyone is ready for the title, "civil union," I'm not about to accept such a demeaning title. My future same-sex marriage will be as blessed by God as everyone else's union.

Melon

 

[indra]

I imagine many people who oppose gay marriage and/or civial unions would say "some of my best friends are gay."


They just don't finish the sentence: "but I don't like them enough to want to allow them the basic rights I take for granted."


Woo Hoo!!! I got post #500!!!

 

[melon]

The graph is fairly straight forward, it just doesn't show causation.

Ah yes. Isn't that the flaw of every right-wing argument against same-sex marriage?

Melon

 

[martha]

Unless everyone is ready for the title, "civil union," I'm not about to accept such a demeaning title. My future same-sex marriage will be as blessed by God as everyone else's union.

I can't stand the term "civil union." It implies second class status. I take such joy, comfort, and solace from my marriage that I want everyone to be able to experience what I've got.


(Now watch someone jump all over my use of the term "everyone" while completely ignoring the context.)

 

[redhotswami]

I can't stand the term "civil union." It implies second class status. I take such joy, comfort, and solace from my marriage that I want everyone to be able to experience what I've got.


(Now watch someone jump all over my use of the term "everyone" while completely ignoring the context.)

OMG Animals???

jk. I agree wholeheartedly. I don't understand the justification behind denying people in love the peace, stability, and comfort that a marrige can bring to the relationship.

 

[BVS]

Goodbye thread.

I can't say I'll exactly miss you.

 

[Irvine511]

you know we're TOTALLY cuter.

 

[anitram]

What puzzles me most is that we now do have jurisdictions around the world where gay marriage is legally acceptable. So you can use those places as pretty good models of what has happened post-introduction of gay marriage rights.

And seriously, nothing has changed for 90% of society (or whatever the number is) who aren't personally going to marry someone of their own gender. Nothing has changed socially for us, nothing has torn apart our moral fabric, and frankly, nobody even thinks about it that much anymore.

So these speculations of how terrible this would be for the society at large are rather easily debunked.

 

[indra]

If "heteros" (since they seem to take offense to being called "breeders." But hey...it wasn't me who said that marriage was all about making babies...)
Melon

Melon, I've never called you or ANY other homosexual person any intentionally derogatory name. NEVER. I can sympathise with your anger, but never truly understand it as I'm not homosexual. you, however, are also not heterosexual nor are you female, so you cannot fully understand why the term "breeder" pisses me off. Can't you at least realise that? If not you are every bit as bad as the people you despise.

 

[melon]

Goodbye thread.

I can't say I'll exactly miss you.

Ah just think? This thread was about New Jersey embracing civil rights. And it turned into a free-for-all gay bashing thread.

I know what I'm going to do the next time there's a thread on Christianity. There's enough skeletons in its historical closet to make for a nice Christian-bashing thread. After all, it's only fair that I return the favor in kind.

Melon

 

[melon]

I can sympathise with your anger, but never truly understand it as I'm not homosexual.

You're right. You know, same-sex marriage is one issue, but just getting people to recognize that gay people exist is an insurmountable task in itself. That's what makes these threads piss me off to no end.

I am not perfect, and anyone who claims to be is lying. So you have my apologies for offending you.

Melon