New Jersey embraces civil rights for all couples

[Irvine511]

Like I asked before, if we oveturned the laws against incest - then you would think it's fine for them to marry? Is this correct? And I imagine that you would use the same reasoning in support of polygamy. Correct?

we overturned laws allowing adults to marry children (think Jerry Lee Lewis or Loretta Lynn), so now adults can no longer marry children.

laws change.

AEON, since your'e so into this, could you please offer me, first, a justification for the legality of incest.

then, i want to hear a reason to make homosexual relationships illegal.

you're going to need to do both to advance your argument much farther.

 

[Irvine511]

Maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way. Why do homosexual couples want to marry?

because we love each other and want to create a solid, stable union that will allow us to protect each other and our children should we choose to have them and we'd like the same validation and worth conferred unto heterosexual couples.

from a more philosophical standpoint, having marriage as a goal for homosexuals would give structure, meaning, and purpose to homosexual dating and relationships. i don't think heterosexuals are quite aware of how much the "marriage goal" shapes and structures their dating habits, from when they are teenagers all through their lives. homosexuals have no such structure.

in fact, marriage seems to me to be the conservative option. as a Christian, i'm sure you object to premarital sex because of the consequences of unregulated sexuality that occurs outside the boundaries of marrige. why not give the same thing to those promiscuous homosexuals?

 

[martha]

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.

 

[AEON]

I would assume for the same reasons that heterosexual couples want to marry.

If a brother and sister wanted to marry for these same reasons - why would you want to deny that to them? Or why would you stop four or five women who really wanted to marry one guy? Or vice versa?

 

[martha]

 

[Irvine511]

If a brother and sister wanted to marry for these same reasons - why would you want to deny that to them? Or why would you stop four or five women who really wanted to marry one guy? Or vice versa?

why are you assuming that there's a comparison to be made between gay people and polygamists and incest participants?

why should you get to marry the woman of your choosing? why do you get that right, but you'd deny it to others?

you're avoiding the question. you're going to need to start making some distinctions instead of giving us hypotheticals and "what if ..." scenarios. the slippery slope is only so slippery, and it slides in both ways.

so, let's nail down our distinctions and determine why some relationships are worthy of social recognition and some are not, and why some sexual activites are legal and why others aren't.

i really want to work through this. i'm trying to engage with you.

 

[martha]

If a brother and sister wanted to marry for these same reasons - why would you want to deny that to them? Or why would you stop four or five women who really wanted to marry one guy? Or vice versa?

Yes. Of course. Let brothers and sisters marry. Let that lucky bastard marry those five babes.

Hell, marriage for everyone but straight Christians. They need to be kept under control because every time they marry, they threaten my incestous, lesbian relationship with my 11-year old niece.

 

[martha]

i really want to work through this. i'm trying to engage with you.

Then I'll stop being a smart-ass and let you try to pry some real answers out of this guy.

 

[AEON]

we overturned laws allowing adults to marry children (think Jerry Lee Lewis or Loretta Lynn), so now adults can no longer marry children.

laws change.

AEON, since your'e so into this, could you please offer me, first, a justification for the legality of incest.

then, i want to hear a reason to make homosexual relationships illegal.

you're going to need to do both to advance your argument much farther.

Well, I wouldn’t exactly say I am “into” this, but I will admit I am curious why so many people feel that homosexual marriage is considered a basic human right on one hand, but in the other hand want to deny this right to incestuous couples and polygamists.
I think what we have here is a problem with the definition of marriage. If it is not simply the spiritual union between a man and a woman, then what does marriage mean to you? Is it simply two people who love each other? Then why not three? Four? Why only two? And if you do concede that it should only be two, then which two people? Any two? Boy, girl, man, woman, brother, sister – as long as it is two?

 

[Irvine511]

Well, I wouldn’t exactly say I am “into” this, but I will admit I am curious why so many people feel that homosexual marriage is considered a basic human right on one hand, but in the other hand want to deny this right to incestuous couples and polygamists.

what the NJ court has said is not that there is a basic human right to marriage but there is a basic right as citizens of NJ to equal protection under the law.

do you think that heterosexual marriage is a basic human right or is it simply in the state's interest to recognize and protect stable adult relationships that will benefit both adult partners as well as their children?

i think looking at it as a "right" misses the point -- it's not a "right" to get married, it's the right to have access to the institution of marriage. no one is saying that churches must marry gay people; they are saying that there is no equal protection when a group of people are unable to have access to an institution due to immutable personal characteristics which are not illegal nor harmful in any way to society.





[q]I think what we have here is a problem with the definition of marriage. If it is not simply the spiritual union between a man and a woman, then what does marriage mean to you?[/q]

in the eyes of the state, marriage has nothing to do with spirituality. it has everything to do with tax breaks, inheritance rights, and power of attorney. it would allow me to pull the plug on my partner, and it would allow me to inherit from my partner should he die and prevent what might be vengeful parents from coming in and taking everything that we've worked for together. in the eyes of the state, spirituality has nothing to do with it. atheist heterosexuals get married all the time, and i don't see you stopping them, and i'm pretty sure they don't give a damn about their spirits.


[q]Is it simply two people who love each other? Then why not three? Four? Why only two? And if you do concede that it should only be two, then which two people? Any two? Boy, girl, man, woman, brother, sister – as long as it is two?[/q]

the polygamy argument has been made illegal due to historical reasons -- it generally involved one man and many underaged girls. within a polygamous relationship lies the inherent potential for exploitation.

if you could, say, present me three heterosexual adults all in their 40s who wanted a polygamous relationship, i would probably shrug and say that i didn't really care what they did. but what's important to note is that they have the option to marry one other person, as a homosexual, i do not have the option to marry anyone.

they have this access that i spoke of earlier. they can get married, under the terms of the state, if they wish. i CANNOT do that. i CANNOT become heterosexual. i CANNOT marry a woman in good faith (isn't there something about misrepresentation in marrige certificates, and that's why Rene Zelwegger divorced that cowboy guy?).

polygamists and incest participants, so long as they are heterosexual, have nothing denied to them. they can marry, perhaps they'd rather marry under different terms and circmstance, but they have the opportunity to participate in a state-recognized adult relationship.

i do not have that option.

 

[verte76]

Gays aren't committing incest. They don't seek to do anything like that. Incest is inappropriate behavior in my book. Homosexuality is simply a sexual orientation. It's not the same thing.

 

[martha]

Eagerly awaiting answers.

 

[melon]

Now - if only we can get polygamy and incestual marriage legalized - then nobody who wants to marry will be denied.

Incestuous marriage, which I certainly think that marriages between first through third cousins are, is already allowed in many states, not to mention that such marriages are recognized as valid marriages even in states where they are not allowed to be performed themselves.

If you have your panties in a bunch about polygamy and incest, then, by all means, pass a constitutional amendment banning marriages based on polygamy, incest, and bestiality. You'll get that amendment passed handily.

Unless you believe in the pre-19th century notion of marriage being about nothing but childbearing, domination over women, and property alliances, there's no logical reason to ban gay marriage.

Melon

 

[Lila64]

I admire your patience Irvine. Really, I do.

 

[AEON]

what the NJ court has said is not that there is a basic human right to marriage but there is a basic right as citizens of NJ to equal protection under the law.

do you think that heterosexual marriage is a basic human right or is it simply in the state's interest to recognize and protect stable adult relationships that will benefit both adult partners as well as their children?
i think looking at it as a "right" misses the point -- it's not a "right" to get married, it's the right to have access to the institution of marriage. no one is saying that churches must marry gay people; they are saying that there is no equal protection when a group of people are unable to have access to an institution due to immutable personal characteristics which are not illegal nor harmful in any way to society.
.

If we are simply talking about equal access to the “benefits” of marriage, then I don’t understand why you would argue that homosexuals deserve special access while polygamists and incestuous partners do not get access.

Originally posted by Irvine511


in the eyes of the state, marriage has nothing to do with spirituality. it has everything to do with tax breaks, inheritance rights, and power of attorney. it would allow me to pull the plug on my partner, and it would allow me to inherit from my partner should he die and prevent what might be vengeful parents from coming in and taking everything that we've worked for together. in the eyes of the state, spirituality has nothing to do with it. atheist heterosexuals get married all the time, and i don't see you stopping them, and i'm pretty sure they don't give a damn about their spirits.

Of course, the spiritual union is the only one in which I truly understand. That makes perfect sense to me. On the other hand, since you are speaking from a pure legal perspective – then the same argument that you are making for homosexual marriage can be made for ANY consenting adult relationship. Who are you and I to deny these benefits? And what is your decision based on? Personal taste? Public opinion? Op eds?

Originally posted by Irvine511


the polygamy argument has been made illegal due to historical reasons -- it generally involved one man and many underaged girls. within a polygamous relationship lies the inherent potential for exploitation.

Well, let’s just assume for arguments sake that everyone is of the “age of consent.” Would you still want to limit their access to marriage benefits?

Originally posted by Irvine511

if you could, say, present me three heterosexual adults all in their 40s who wanted a polygamous relationship, i would probably shrug and say that i didn't really care what they did. but what's important to note is that they have the option to marry one other person, as a homosexual, i do not have the option to marry anyone.

I don’t understand your point here. Are you saying that if they DID want to marry, then they should only be able to choose ONE, and only one? If so, why?

Originally posted by Irvine511

they have this access that i spoke of earlier. they can get married, under the terms of the state, if they wish. i CANNOT do that. i CANNOT become heterosexual. i CANNOT marry a woman in good faith (isn't there something about misrepresentation in marrige certificates, and that's why Rene Zelwegger divorced that cowboy guy?).

I don’t know about the cowboy guy. Maybe you can’t become heterosexual, and maybe a polygamist can’t become a monogamist. I still don’t see your reasons for allowing one group special legal status and not another.

Originally posted by Irvine511


polygamists and incest participants, so long as they are heterosexual, have nothing denied to them. they can marry, perhaps they'd rather marry under different terms and circmstance, but they have the opportunity to participate in a state-recognized adult relationship.

i do not have that option.

Do they? In what state?

 

[melon]

Well, I wouldn’t exactly say I am “into” this, but I will admit I am curious why so many people feel that homosexual marriage is considered a basic human right on one hand, but in the other hand want to deny this right to incestuous couples and polygamists.

Polygamy and incest, in terms of immediate family members, is banned across the board in American society. Neither heterosexual, nor homosexual people are permitted to enter such arrangements. As such, as a matter of equity, there's nothing bad about it.

I think what we have here is a problem with the definition of marriage. If it is not simply the spiritual union between a man and a woman, then what does marriage mean to you? Is it simply two people who love each other? Then why not three? Four? Why only two? And if you do concede that it should only be two, then which two people? Any two? Boy, girl, man, woman, brother, sister – as long as it is two?

Your definition is a little short sighted. I mean, in the Roman Catholic Church, "marriage" is defined as a sacrament between a Catholic man and woman. As such, according to the Catholic Church, all non-Catholic "married couples" are merely living in sin, and, technically, engaging in mass fornication.

What we have a problem with here is that if we start defining legal institutions based on subjective religious practices, where do we stop? Why don't we legalize polygamy, since Islam permits it? After all, what makes Christian religious practices "better" than Muslim religious practices in a country that practices "freedom of religion"?

Secular humanism, which is what our country was really founded on (where do you think "freedom of religion" comes from? The Bible? Hah!), has determined the justification of gay marriage. It's between consenting adults. It doesn't hurt anyone. And there's no rational reason to impose gender roles as a reason to discriminate. If it can be accepted that marriages can occur without children, which many heterosexual couples choose to do, then it cannot logically be determined that marriage is about having children and families.

In the end, I believe in the right of the Roman Catholic Church, for instance, to marry who they want, and, likewise, declare who is not married in their eyes. And, likewise, I believe it is the right for people to live how they want, no matter how much it pisses off the Catholic Church or Evangelical Christians or Ayatollah Khameini.

Whether or not two men or two women get married is absolutely none of your business, just as it is none of my business regarding everyone else's marriages. If that means that a brother and sister want to get married, why should I care? I don't. I'll find it as gross as any other heterosexual union. Polygamy is a whole other can of worms, mainly because such arrangements are never equal and often abusive. We're past the days when women were merely property to be acquired, which is why those arrangements are unacceptable in the Western world.

Melon

 

[yolland]

martha, knock it off. Seeing someone else's viewpoint as morally wrong or logically flawed doesn't give you license to make personal attacks in here.

 

[BVS]

AEON, why does it bother you if two women get married?

 

[martha]

martha, knock it off. Seeing someone else's viewpoint as morally wrong or logically flawed doesn't give you license to make personal attacks in here.

I know. I knew I was asking for trouble. I'm not going to apologize, because I really would say the same thing to his face, only with a much more irritated look on my face.

I personally see his viewpoints as incredibly personal attacks on people who post here. His insistence on continually and repeatedly linking homosexuality and incest is nothing short of a personal attack on Irvine and melon. I do believe he's doing it on purpose, and clearly knows the link is offensive. He'll gladly hide behind what he considers "religion" to make his point. I'd be just as intolerant of such a viewpoint if he were continually and repeatedly linking biracial marriage to incest.

And I think he'd be called on it more if he did.

 

[DILETTANTE]

This is overly simplistic, but I think that in some European countries, heterosexual couples often have two "marriages" -- a civil marriage and a religious one. It's up to each religious denomination to decide what criteria are needed for a religious marriage. Maybe maintaining that distinction in the US would be a good way to resolve at least some of the concerns. Heterosexual and homosexual couples would have the option of civil marriages. And couples who wanted religious marriages as well would have to abide by the rules of their religious denominations.

 

[INDY500]

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.

Translation;
Your insolence will not be tolerated.

Aeon, as this thread illustrates, there are some here you can enjoyably debate and converse with, and some it's best to avoid. So insecurely held are their beliefs, so shallow their autonomy, their doctrine so fleeting; that challenges or scrutiny can only be met with, at best avoidance, but more often than not hostility and defamation of character. As you've no doubt discovered.

 

[BVS]

I personally see his viewpoints as incredibly personal attacks on people who post here. His insistence on continually and repeatedly linking homosexuality and incest is nothing short of a personal attack on Irvine and melon.

I completely agree.

 

[melon]

Aeon, as this thread illustrates, there are some here you can enjoyably debate and converse with, and some it's best to avoid. So insecurely held are their beliefs, so shallow their autonomy, their doctrine so fleeting; that challenges or scrutiny can only be met with, at best avoidance, but more often than not hostility and defamation of character. As you've no doubt discovered.

You don't need to follow it up with condescending arrogance.

The problem is that liberal/conservative debates are often fought on completely different standards. Liberals are expected to cite large bodies of scientific literature, etc., whereas conservatives merely have to say that their religious beliefs compel them to be a raving bigot. "How dare you say bad things about my God-granted bigotry!"

I can certainly see why it drives many liberals to maddening frustration, particularly when these same arguments continue to appear, no matter how many times we argue to the contrary.

But I've been doing it for six years here now. I'm quite prepared for the assault.

Melon

 

[Irvine511]

If we are simply talking about equal access to the “benefits” of marriage, then I don’t understand why you would argue that homosexuals deserve special access while polygamists and incestuous partners do not get access.

first, i want you to know that it actually is very big of me to continually politely ignore your equivocation between homosexuals and the illegal activities of polygamy and incest. and you've yet to answer the direct question of whether or not you think that heterosexual relationships by definition are superior to homosexual relationships.

anyway, polygamists and incest participants DO have access to marriage. so long as they are heterosexual, they can choose to marry one person of the opposite gender. they might PREFER to marry many partners, or their daughters, but the fact remains that marriage is a viable option. also, polygamy and incest are expressions of choice within the framework of heterosexuality; nothing is being denied to them on the basis of their immutable sexual orientation, whereas something is being denied to me on the basis of my own immutable sexual orientation. laws governing heterosexual relationships do not allow heterosexuals to marry anyone, but they do allow them to marry SOMEONE. homosexuals simply want the same thing, which would be to marry another homosexual.






[q]Of course, the spiritual union is the only one in which I truly understand. That makes perfect sense to me. On the other hand, since you are speaking from a pure legal perspective – then the same argument that you are making for homosexual marriage can be made for ANY consenting adult relationship. Who are you and I to deny these benefits? And what is your decision based on? Personal taste? Public opinion? Op eds?[/q]

no it cannot. go back to the above paragraph. i am having rights denied to me because i cannot marry SOMEONE else. you and i can deny the rights of polygamous or incestuous couples on the basis of things that have nothing to do with marriage and everything to do with the nature of the relationships themselves, which could probably be boiled down to the lack of meaningful consent in these relationships.

married or not, it is illegal to have sex with your daughter. it is NOT illegal for two men or two women to have sex with one another. there is nothing illegal about a homosexual relationship because it is EXACTLY the same as a heterosexual relationship, only with the same gender. incestuous homosexual relationships would be just as illegal as heterosexual incest relationships.




[q]Well, let’s just assume for arguments sake that everyone is of the “age of consent.” Would you still want to limit their access to marriage benefits?[/q]

this misses the point. again, a heterosexual polygamist CAN GET MARRIED TO ANOTHER HETEROSEXUAL. he might choose to be married to many heterosexuals, but that is most assuredly a "lifestyle choice" or perhaps "cultural practice," but he has not been barred from any rights in the way that i have been barred from any rights.

if polygamists want the same protection as couples, that's fine. they're welcome to fight for them. but that fight is about the recognition of a cultural practice, it is NOT about rights denied to them.

i don't think you can meaningfully equate the practice of polygamy or the act of incest to the identity of being homosexual.

this is what you don't seem to get. homosexuality is not a practice. it is not an activity. it is not a sexual position. it is not a fetish. it is not a defect. it is a sexual orientation.

think about the way you feel about your wife in particular, and then women in general. that's how i feel about my boyfriend, and men in general.




[q]I don’t understand your point here. Are you saying that if they DID want to marry, then they should only be able to choose ONE, and only one? If so, why?[/q]

i am saying that a heterosexual polygamist can marry ONE other heterosexual. he has that option. a homosexual, by contrast, cannot marry ONE other homosexual.



[q]I don’t know about the cowboy guy. Maybe you can’t become heterosexual, and maybe a polygamist can’t become a monogamist. I still don’t see your reasons for allowing one group special legal status and not another.[/q]

can you become homosexual?

you see, AEON, all your arguments rest upon your misunderstanding of what homosexuality is. it is not a cultural practice or lifestyle choice like polygamy or incest. both of these are clearly choices. sure, one could say that they "prefer" to have 4 wives or they "prefer" to be with their sister, but the fact remains that they have access to the rights and privileges of marrige by virtue of their heterosexuality. they have other options. i don't simply "prefer" men to women because i don't have any meaningful romantic attraction to women at all in the same way that you the proud heterosexual don't have any meaningful romantic attraction to men.

i don't have any options available to me, and you're denying them to me on the basis of an immutable, harmless, socially recognized orientation.

Do they? In what state?

go back and read. someone in an incestuous relationship might not be able to marry his daughter, but he CAN marry another heterosexual woman. a polygamist cannot marry all of his wives, but he CAN marry one of them.

i cannot marry ANY homosexual.

 

[martha]

Translation;
Your insolence will not be tolerated.

Aeon, as this thread illustrates, there are some here you can enjoyably debate and converse with, and some it's best to avoid. So insecurely held are their beliefs, so shallow their autonomy, their doctrine so fleeting; that challenges or scrutiny can only be met with, at best avoidance, but more often than not hostility and defamation of character. As you've no doubt discovered.

You are completely right! I do hope you put me on your ignore list so you can avoid me when I challenge bigotry done in the name of Jesus. My doctrine of equality is indeed fleeting without Biblical sanction for discrimination, ain't it.

 

[AEON]

Polygamy and incest, in terms of immediate family members, is banned across the board in American society. Neither heterosexual, nor homosexual people are permitted to enter such arrangements. As such, as a matter of equity, there's nothing bad about it.



Your definition is a little short sighted. I mean, in the Roman Catholic Church, "marriage" is defined as a sacrament between a Catholic man and woman. As such, according to the Catholic Church, all non-Catholic "married couples" are merely living in sin, and, technically, engaging in mass fornication.

What we have a problem with here is that if we start defining legal institutions based on subjective religious practices, where do we stop? Why don't we legalize polygamy, since Islam permits it? After all, what makes Christian religious practices "better" than Muslim religious practices in a country that practices "freedom of religion"?

Secular humanism, which is what our country was really founded on (where do you think "freedom of religion" comes from? The Bible? Hah!), has determined the justification of gay marriage. It's between consenting adults. It doesn't hurt anyone. And there's no rational reason to impose gender roles as a reason to discriminate. If it can be accepted that marriages can occur without children, which many heterosexual couples choose to do, then it cannot logically be determined that marriage is about having children and families.

In the end, I believe in the right of the Roman Catholic Church, for instance, to marry who they want, and, likewise, declare who is not married in their eyes. And, likewise, I believe it is the right for people to live how they want, no matter how much it pisses off the Catholic Church or Evangelical Christians or Ayatollah Khameini.

Whether or not two men or two women get married is absolutely none of your business, just as it is none of my business regarding everyone else's marriages. If that means that a brother and sister want to get married, why should I care? I don't. I'll find it as gross as any other heterosexual union. Polygamy is a whole other can of worms, mainly because such arrangements are never equal and often abusive. We're past the days when women were merely property to be acquired, which is why those arrangements are unacceptable in the Western world.

Melon

Again, it all boils down to which Book of Rules we all want to play by. You are pushing Secular Humanism, I push a Christian view, other push a "Do What's Best For Yourself" view.

I know which view I think works best, and that's how I vote. If I lose, I lose. Within my world view - "marriage" is still the spiritual union of a man and a woman, regardless of what the American legal system says.

The great thing is, you also have the right to vote according to your rule book.

 

[melon]

Again, it all boils down to which Book of Rules we all want to play by. You are pushing Secular Humanism, I push a Christian view, other push a "Do What's Best For Yourself" view.

I know which view I think works best, and that's how I vote. If I lose, I lose. Within my world view - "marriage" is still the spiritual union of a man and a woman, regardless of what the American legal system says.

The great thing is, you also have the right to vote according to your rule book.

Well, and that's ultimately why you come up with these arguments constantly. You have your Biblical justification for thinking that homosexuals are nothing but degenerate sinners who deserve nothing but death. So why not just come out and say it next time, instead of coming up with a hapless argument about polygamy and incest? Sounds to me like you're looking for justification after the fact, rather than a foundation for your beliefs.

But here's the thing: your viewpoint is exclusionary, whereas mine is inclusionary. Gay marriage, no matter what you say, will never affect you in the slightest, just as your decision to get married or divorced or remain single means absolutely nothing to me. I don't know why you care...aside from feeling a Biblical compulsion to force non-believers to live according to your beliefs and your lifestyle choices. Talk about "doing what's best for yourself."

In the end, I will always fight against those who wish to institute Taliban-style myopia in American society. And I certainly make sure to vote in every election without fail.

Melon

 

[martha]

Again, it all boils down to which Book of Rules we all want to play by. You are pushing Secular Humanism, I push a Christian view, other push a "Do What's Best For Yourself" view.

I know which view I think works best, and that's how I vote. If I lose, I lose. Within my world view - "marriage" is still the spiritual union of a man and a woman, regardless of what the American legal system says.

The great thing is, you also have the right to vote according to your rule book.

Translation: Jesus says it's ok to discriminate!

 

[Justin24]

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.

I dont care if they marry but I am sick of this shit that some elses opinion is invalid and they are blasted for there opinion. You expect them Just Like YOU. He may not agree with GAY MARRIAGE BUT IT DOES NOT MEAN HE HATES THEM. SO DONT AUTOMATICALLY LABEL A PERSON A BIGOT, BECAUSE YOUR THE ONE BIGGOTING RIGHT NOW ON YOUR DISGUST AND HATRED TOWARDS A FELLOW HUMAN BEING!!!


HYPOCRITE. ITS AMAZING YOU PEOPLE ARE CALLED SHEEPLE YET YOUR ASKING OTHERS TO FOLLOW YOUR WAY.

LIke I said I dont give a Flying Fuck if they Marry just shut up and let a person have there own belifes.

 

[martha]

I dont care if they marry but I am sick of this shit that some elses opinion is invalid and they are blasted for there opinion. You expect them Just Like YOU. He may not agree with GAY MARRIAGE BUT IT DOES NOT MEAN HE HATES THEM. SO DONT AUTOMATICALLY LABEL A PERSON A BIGOT, BECAUSE YOUR THE ONE BIGGOTING RIGHT NOW ON YOUR DISGUST AND HATRED TOWARDS A FELLOW HUMAN BEING!!!

Justin, where did I say I hate him? I was telling him I was sick of his comparisons between homosexuality and incest. And yes, I am disgusted with his viewpoints.