NJ Allows Gay Something

Happy Monkey · 10-25-2006, 04:54 PM

The New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled[pdf] that gays deserve equal rights under the law, but you don't have to call it "marriage".

If it satisfies some fundies that a different word is used, I suppose that's fine. Everyone will use the word "marriage" colloquially anyway.

Sheldonrs · 10-25-2006, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

The New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled[pdf] that gays deserve equal rights under the law, but you don't have to call it "marriage".

If it satisfies some fundies that a different word is used, I suppose that's fine. Everyone will use the word "marriage" colloquially anyway.

yippee. So now 50% of GAY couples can get divorced; just like straight ones.
I say ban ALL marriage!

9th Engineer · 10-25-2006, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Same sex marriage? Big deal. Anyone who's married knows it's always the same sex!

xoxoxoBruce · 10-27-2006, 08:53 PM

Oh lord, now more soldiers will die and children will be having sex with their pets and probably the clocks will run backwards for an half hour this weekend.
Woe is me.

tw · 10-28-2006, 12:36 AM

Benito Martinez Abrogan died earlier in October. At the age of 119 (19 Jun 2005), god forced him to "tripping the light fantastic with any young nurse he could grab". Clearly god was punishing Benito because he attributed his long life to "He never married". As others have noted, the purpose of a penis is to procreate kids. He did not do that. Therefore he was punished.

God also hates gays. Therefore let them marry. Then they too will die from a torture called marriage. Sooner we kill off more gays by using marriage, then the fewer problems we will have from those evil people. Clearly there are too many gays living only because they cannot marry. Deny them marriage and they too might live to 120.

I just graduated from the Karl Rove School of Logic. Now I need a spokesman to say these things for me. Does George Jr have a brother?

10-28-2006, 08:51 AM

Colorado actually has a proposal on its ballot to allow same sex couples to make legally binding contracts with one another. Such a contract would confer most of the things that a regular marriage would confer, but it would be called a civil union or something - NOT marriage.

Right after that is a proposal that would make "marriage" a union between a male and a female, only.

Poor Colorado! So far from God, so close to Focus on the Family!

Pete · 10-28-2006, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tw

... As others have noted, the purpose of a penis is to procreate kids. ...

I keep hearing this argument against gay marriage and everytime I want to hear the debate continued.

If the reason for denying gay couples to marry is that marriage is for procreation and same-sex couples cannot possibly procreate ... does that mean you would deny an infertile heterosexual couple the right to marry?

Can anyone tell me what the standard response to that would be?

slang · 10-28-2006, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

.....that gays deserve equal rights under the law, but you don't have to call it "marriage".

Perfect. No objections here.

Ibby · 10-28-2006, 11:59 PM

The only problem I have with that arrangement is that it reeks of 'seperate but equal' to me.

Happy Monkey · 10-29-2006, 11:27 AM

If they do it as a parallel law, then it is.

Novae · 11-05-2006, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ibram

The only problem I have with that arrangement is that it reeks of 'seperate but equal' to me.

That's something that doesn't seem right at all. I know it's marriage and not something like a restaurant or a school district, but still... we all know what happens when our government is trusted with equality.

Besides, there isn't much argument against gay marriage that isn't religious. The only atheist I've ever met that isn't for gay marriage (but is for "civil unions") said that it was dangerous not because of the shitty animal marriage concerns, but because of the polygamists.

The difference between them is that polygamy IS a behavioral choice, and that homosexuality is, by all scientific evidence, biological.

9th Engineer · 11-05-2006, 07:17 PM

I don't agree with that analysis at all, you say that polygamy is an active choice? What are the grounds for that? If you say that someone should just be happy with a single spouce then I can make the argument that someone should just be happy with a partner of the opposite sex. Even putting aside the issue of choice, it's going to be open and shut to get polygamy passed from a legalistic point of reference, which is really the only thing that matters here. I think we're going to see alot of the same people who called gay marriage dissenters bigots go out of their way now to smear polygamists as much as possible. One of the strongest arguments against gay marriage is the fact that one you put it into law it sets all the legal precidents needed to forge ahead with polygamous marriage. What's really going to make me sick is when liberals start using family values and scare tactics to make polygamy look like a cult in order to side step the issue that it is the logical continuation.

Ibby · 11-05-2006, 07:26 PM

I'm against polygamy on a moral basis, but I think making it legal would be the right thing to do, as long as it's carefully checked for abuse and all the other assorted filth that often goes along with it. Having multiple spouses, okay. Abusing them or their children, NOT okay.

9th Engineer · 11-05-2006, 07:34 PM

Of course, so what you're saying is that they should be governed by the same rules as the rest of us then...

Ibby · 11-05-2006, 08:19 PM

Exactly. No restrictions on who you marry (or, i guess, how many), but the same restrictions on what you can do after that as anyone else.

10-25-2006, 04:54 PM	#1
Happy Monkey I think this line's mostly filler. Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: DC Posts: 13,575	NJ Allows Gay Something The New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled[pdf] that gays deserve equal rights under the law, but you don't have to call it "marriage". If it satisfies some fundies that a different word is used, I suppose that's fine. Everyone will use the word "marriage" colloquially anyway. __________________ _________________ \|...............\| We live in the nick of times. \| Len 17, Wid 3 \| \|_______________\| [pics]

10-27-2006, 08:53 PM	#4
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	Oh lord, now more soldiers will die and children will be having sex with their pets and probably the clocks will run backwards for an half hour this weekend. Woe is me. __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

10-28-2006, 11:59 PM	#9
Ibby erika Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: "the high up north" Posts: 6,127	The only problem I have with that arrangement is that it reeks of 'seperate but equal' to me. __________________ not really back, you didn't see me, i was never here shhhhhh

10-29-2006, 11:27 AM	#10
Happy Monkey I think this line's mostly filler. Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: DC Posts: 13,575	If they do it as a parallel law, then it is. __________________ _________________ \|...............\| We live in the nick of times. \| Len 17, Wid 3 \| \|_______________\| [pics]

11-05-2006, 07:17 PM	#12
9th Engineer Bioengineer and aspiring lawer Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Pittsburgh Posts: 872	I don't agree with that analysis at all, you say that polygamy is an active choice? What are the grounds for that? If you say that someone should just be happy with a single spouce then I can make the argument that someone should just be happy with a partner of the opposite sex. Even putting aside the issue of choice, it's going to be open and shut to get polygamy passed from a legalistic point of reference, which is really the only thing that matters here. I think we're going to see alot of the same people who called gay marriage dissenters bigots go out of their way now to smear polygamists as much as possible. One of the strongest arguments against gay marriage is the fact that one you put it into law it sets all the legal precidents needed to forge ahead with polygamous marriage. What's really going to make me sick is when liberals start using family values and scare tactics to make polygamy look like a cult in order to side step the issue that it is the logical continuation. __________________ The most valuable renewable resource is stupidity.

10-28-2006, 12:36 AM	#5
tw Read? I only know how to write. Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 11,933	Benito Martinez Abrogan died earlier in October. At the age of 119 (19 Jun 2005), god forced him to "tripping the light fantastic with any young nurse he could grab". Clearly god was punishing Benito because he attributed his long life to "He never married". As others have noted, the purpose of a penis is to procreate kids. He did not do that. Therefore he was punished. God also hates gays. Therefore let them marry. Then they too will die from a torture called marriage. Sooner we kill off more gays by using marriage, then the fewer problems we will have from those evil people. Clearly there are too many gays living only because they cannot marry. Deny them marriage and they too might live to 120. I just graduated from the Karl Rove School of Logic. Now I need a spokesman to say these things for me. Does George Jr have a brother?

10-28-2006, 08:51 AM	#6
marichiko Guest Posts: n/a	Colorado actually has a proposal on its ballot to allow same sex couples to make legally binding contracts with one another. Such a contract would confer most of the things that a regular marriage would confer, but it would be called a civil union or something - NOT marriage. Right after that is a proposal that would make "marriage" a union between a male and a female, only. Poor Colorado! So far from God, so close to Focus on the Family!

11-05-2006, 07:26 PM	#13
Ibby erika Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: "the high up north" Posts: 6,127	I'm against polygamy on a moral basis, but I think making it legal would be the right thing to do, as long as it's carefully checked for abuse and all the other assorted filth that often goes along with it. Having multiple spouses, okay. Abusing them or their children, NOT okay. __________________ not really back, you didn't see me, i was never here shhhhhh

11-05-2006, 07:34 PM	#14
9th Engineer Bioengineer and aspiring lawer Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Pittsburgh Posts: 872	Of course, so what you're saying is that they should be governed by the same rules as the rest of us then... __________________ The most valuable renewable resource is stupidity.

11-05-2006, 08:19 PM	#15
Ibby erika Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: "the high up north" Posts: 6,127	Exactly. No restrictions on who you marry (or, i guess, how many), but the same restrictions on what you can do after that as anyone else. __________________ not really back, you didn't see me, i was never here shhhhhh

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)