Breaking: New Jersey approves gay civil unions
posted at 7:12 pm on December 14, 2006 by Ian
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
As expected, the New Jersey legislature voted to approve gay civil unions:
The New Jersey Legislature voted this evening to allow civil unions between same-sex couples, quickly settling an emotionally fraught issue but frustrating advocates on both sides.
### New Jersey would be the third state, after Vermont and Connecticut, to establish civil unions for gay and lesbian couples. Same-sex marriages are allowed only in Massachusetts, which has a residency requirement, although many gays and lesbians have married in Canada.
The civil union law was written under pressure, in response to a directive by the State Supreme Court seven weeks ago to assure that gay and lesbian couples are guaranteed the same rights and benefits as married heterosexual couples.
Perhaps they were drinking … soy milk?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
A race of people (blacks) and a lifestyle (gays) are two different things. Anyone can see that.
thedecider on December 15, 2006 at 2:44 AM
Both aren’t a choice.
But what does talking of things anathema to society have anything to do with gay marriage? Gay marriage rights shouldn’t be allowed because it’s “anathema” to normal society? There are many things that are/have been anathema to society that we allow.
Nonfactor on December 15, 2006 at 2:54 AM
Again, that’s where you’re wrong…being gay is not a “lifetsyle” one chooses…and believing that is the foundation of your entire argument…
(sorry…can’t sleep…)
You refuse to accept that it is not a choice…because to do so would invalidate everything you said.
Believe me…I, as many others, tried my damndest to “choose” to be straight…it just doesn’t work, my friend.
Again…ask yourself WHY, for WHAT REASON, would anyone choose to be gay?
JetBoy on December 15, 2006 at 2:57 AM
well as I hinted at earlier the American Psychiatric Association stopped listing it as a disorder back in 1973…because it isn’t one. You’re about 30 years behind.
crr6 on December 15, 2006 at 3:06 AM
If homosexuality is genetic and therefore no different than heterosexuality, what does that make pedophilia?
.
GT on December 15, 2006 at 6:27 AM
Sorry, but children have been adopted by a man and a woman, abused, locked in cages, sexually assaulted and worse. Is that a better house to grow up in than living with 2 fathers or 2 mothers who love you, feed you send you to school, and raise you?
amerpundit on December 15, 2006 at 7:57 AM
Would have responded last night, but I had to sleep.
My point is that I believe this country is big enough to handle different opinions on an emotionally-charged issue without the sort of ‘agree with me or go away’ nonsense that you’re tossing off.
The legislature in New Jersey, it seems, was doing the will of the people who live in that state by passing a bill on civil unions. 60 percent of the people in that state support what the legislature did.
I really should refrain from giving your comment the dignity of a response, but let me just say that the real me does not resemble the rather crude strawman you’ve constructed here.
Slublog on December 15, 2006 at 8:53 AM
Glad to see the open and civil discussion on this board. I shudder to see how this topic is being discussed on DU, Kos, etc. IMHO, I’m glad to see that gays can now have the same privileges and responsibilities as a married couple. But that does not mean they are married. Marriage is our word, we started using it first. If they don’t like civil union they should make up their own fantabulous word for it, but don’t call it marriage. There’s a reason Froot Loops aren’t called Fruit Loops. Calling two men living together a marriage is false advertising.
BohicaTwentyTwo on December 15, 2006 at 9:06 AM
I hope you are asking this question as a joke, but in the off chance you’re not, I’ll indulge you. For argument’s sake let’s just assume homosexuality and pedophilia are both genetic, as is schizophrenia. Homosexuals engage in consensual relationships with adults of legal age and thus pose no threat to themselves, others, or society. People with schizophrenia behave in strange, unpredictable ways that can often put themselves and those around them at risk; despite the fact their condition is genetic, their behavior poses a threat and they must be medicated, monitored, or institutionalized. Pedophiles have more in common with schizophrenics than homosexuals in that their behavior, while determined by genetics, poses a threat to the most vulnerable members of society and thus their behavior must be forbidden and their condition treated. I hope this little analogy helps you understand the difference.
I hate to break it to you but the movement against gay marriage isn’t so much failing as it is slowly corroding. I would bet within 20 years the vast majority of states either recognize gay unions or the Supreme Court rules that they must. It is just a matter of history and of common sense. Our country’s history shows a clear progression of gradually affording rights to minorities. First only white, land-owning men had rights, then all white men, then all men, then both men and women…you get the idea. Homosexuals are just the next step in the progression. And think about it, it’s happening at record speed. It took more than 100 years for blacks to go from recently freed slaves, to full members of society with the same rights as whites. In less than 30 years homosexuals have gone from being characterized as having a mental disorder to gaining the right to marry/form unions in 3 states. Not only that, but gay culture has become so popular and mainstream that today’s children will almost certainly not suffer from the homophobia so prevalent in today’s society. It’s only a matter of time my friend…
JaHerer22 on December 15, 2006 at 9:52 AM
So again, I have to ask, this is about “couples”? Is that your argument? The old “two consenting adults” thing? Why? Who the hell are you to determine that it’s always a “couple”, and not multiple partner arrangements, among other alternatives? It’s not a slippery slope, it’s an equal rights thing.
As I told your buddy earlier, this is the most empty and ridiculous argument. I hope you realize it is anything but evidence that being gay is natural. WHY, for WHAT REASON, would anyone choose to pierce and tattoo their entire body and dye their hair green? WHY, for WHAT REASON, would anyone let themselves become a 600 pound monster who rots in a government subsidized apartment? Etc. Etc.
This could just as easily happen with either, that is no argument. If it is, then you would certainly have to accept the argument that a majority of child molestations are homosexual ones.
Oh, so now it’s about artificial ages that state governments have settled on? So a pedophile wouldn’t notice a hot chick at 17 years 364 days, but when she hits 18 she’s suddenly hot? Like with polygamists, I don’t support pedophilia or accept that it’s natural, but who are you to say it’s not while insisting being gay is? Like your pals have said about gay marriage ask yourself “why would they choose to be that way? and ask any pedophile if they chose to be that way”
Again, what makes an adult? In your argument, that’s the important question. You’re reverting back to established law to determine what “two consenting adults” is… Why then do you want to change marriage/civil union laws to allow gays to marry?
And what’s the next step after that? What’s the next fad group that will emerge, demand, and obtain “equal rights?
In closing, you people are insane, I can’t believe I’ve wasted time on people who clearly hang out in circles where this isn’t debated and are so far gone you have no idea how insane you really sound.
RightWinged on December 15, 2006 at 10:56 AM
the goalposts got pushed from civil unions to marriage by the same activists who made aids an epidemic by claiming that monogamy and prudent sexual practices were heteronormative fascism.
jummy on December 15, 2006 at 11:14 AM
Full disclosure: I am a Baptist minister in the state of New Jersey and, as such, am fully certified to officiate marriages.
RightWinged, calm down some. Take a break from the keyboard. If you are a Christian I want to remind you that your sins are no less than those (perceived or real) sins of a homosexual.
As far as the slippery slope argument, the question that needs to be asked is: Should homosexuals be denied the advantages of state recognized union because we find bestiality or pedophilia reprehensible? Should all marriage be outlawed to ensure that Billy-bob will never be able to marry his goat?
I am no cheerleader for homosexuality in general. But I believe that if it is a sin it’s no bigger a sin than say cheating on your taxes. In fact, Jesus spoke directly to the latter (”Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s”) but mentioned nary a word about the former.
I find no reason why two consenting adults should not be afforded equal protection and advantage under the laws of this nation.
12thman on December 15, 2006 at 11:42 AM
I don’t think you understood the point of my argument. I said it could very well be both homosexuality and pedophilia are natural, genetic predispositions, but that does not mean they should or need to be treated equally.
Baldness and schizophrenia are both natural, genetic predispositions but that doesn’t mean we treat them the same. Bald people pose no inherant threat to children whereas there is a good chance a schizophrenic might. Homosexuals pose no inherant risk to children whereas there is an even better chance a pedophile. It doesn’t seem this is too hard to understand or very controversial.
JaHerer22 on December 15, 2006 at 11:52 AM
Whatever JaHerer22, you’re too blind, I’m tired of wasting time on you and Nonfactor..
But 12thman, you’ve got to be kidding me…
What about my argument said anything about Christianity? Regardless of whether I’m a Christian, I didn’t sit here and condemn anyone for being gay as a sin… These people aren’t Christians in the first place, why argue on religious grounds to them? You’re like the Christian pastor who doesn’t encourage his congregation to fight science with science in the creation/evolution debate, you just want them to walk blindly. While it may be in the right direction, do they truly believe, or are they looking for an insurance policy? “Just incase” there is a God.
Now before you go off on the tangent “I know some gay Chritians”, which is ridiculous anyway, you know my point and you know that the extreme majority are not religious at all.
If you want to talk about one sin not being worse than another, that may be true… But if you accept that it is a sin, then you have to realize that their entire life and identity is based on sin. It’s not like punching someone in the face or stealing some money. They are in complete opposition to what God designed them to be, with organs that a counterpart for organs of the opposite sex, designed perfectly to go together to produce offspring. Yeah, each individual sin is equal to any other… but I don’t think you can make that argument when a gay’s entire life is about sin. And if you aren’t saved, the “each sin is equal” argument is moot anyway. So you would then attempt to argue again that there are gay Christians, to which I say back “how can you be a true Christian and repent, when your entire life is about sinning? Not just a compilation of sins like the rest of us, but identifying yourself by a sinful act.?”
Anyway, you need to take a step back before you attempt to debate things guy. You’re like any evolutionist who can’t stand debating science with someone who recognizes the creation… they lash out and complain about Christian arguments, when we made no such thing. Again, you can’t argue with someone who doesn’t share your belief system… is that more clear? Which is why we have to deal with “nature” for these people.
RightWinged on December 15, 2006 at 12:10 PM
RightWinged…
I asked why would anyone choose to be gay, and this is the answer you give:
Hate to say it, but you “answered” my question like a true-blue liberal would…with a little side-stepping and unrelated other examples…
And I certainly don’t find it a “waste of time” to debate an issue such as this…and I’m sorry if you do…
JetBoy on December 15, 2006 at 12:18 PM
I’m blind Rightwinged?
I wrote “For argument’s sake let’s just assume homosexuality and pedophilia are both genetic,”
And you responded “I don’t support pedophilia or accept that it’s natural, but who are you to say it’s not while insisting being gay is?”
If claiming I said the exact opposite of what I actually said isn’t being blind I don’t know what is.
Usually you seem to make rational, thoughtful arguments but on this issue I feel like you’re drinking the kool-aid.
JaHerer22 on December 15, 2006 at 12:19 PM
Actually, this is theologically false. The Bible condemns homosexual acts, not homosexuality. If someone is attracted to the same sex, but does not act on that desire, then I believe they have not sinned.
Theologian Henri Nouwen was gay, but in order to maintain his walk with God, took a vow of celibacy so that his orientation did not become sin.
Slublog on December 15, 2006 at 12:24 PM
Jeez, I’m glad this continued through until this morning. I obviously go to be too early. If I may catch up…
The subjects you’ve touched on here involve multiple factors as to why people believe the way they do. They involve human rights, they involve science, they involve health issues, they involve criminology issues, they involve the one thing that no one anywhere is willing to admit is one of the basis for anti-”different” beliefs…(GASP) religious tradition!
The discussion of homosexuality deals with whether an individual is “born” that way or “learns” it. Let’s lay some foundation. If we look at the brain structure of males and females, we will find differences in which areas are more developed that are consistent with their genter. At autopsy, the brain of a transgender individual, someone who feels that they are a “man” trapped in a woman’s body, or vica-versa, shows that the person’s brain development usually coincides more with member’s of the gender they identify with rather than what they physiologically are. It is currently theorized that this is because of maternal hormonal levels while she is carrying the fetus. This isn’t genetic, but rather pre-natal development. If further studies validate this, it’s not entirely impossible for similar factors to be at work in homosexuality. They just haven’t nailed down the link yet. So, RightWinged, if in the future, they can prove that homosexuality is developmental, would you deny these individuals the same rights you enjoy based simply on a developmental variation?
Moving on…Same sex marriage/union. Whether the federal or state governments acknowledge them, familial relationships exist in the “queer” community. They function just like hetro relationships, including raising children. They live, they love, they fight and they breakup/get divorced. No difference, some break up in months, others last decades, until death do they part. The only difference is that because they don’t have the same rights, a non-biological parent can lose children that he or she may have parented for 5, 10, maybe 15 years. They can’t make medical decisions in an emergency for child or spouse. In some states, they can’t even claim the body. Is this a good thing?
Moving on…slippery slope. Polygamy, incest,pedophilia, beastiality.
Here we look at multiple reasons why and why not based on different disciplines. First Polygamy. Let’s create a difference between Polygamy as we know it, as practiced by certain religious sects and Polyamory. Polyamory is the practice of having commited non-monogamous relations. They can be in a single multi-adult household or can be a coupled pair with other non-resident committed partners. May people in the US practice serial polyamory. They marry, get divorced, marry, get divorced, etc. Polygamy, as we know it can involve relationships with what the states consider children. This brings up the issue of informed consent on the part of the child. Just as pedeophilia is wrong and for the same reasons, this practice in polygamy is wrong. Not because the child is not capable of “naturally” having children, but because we’ve determined that most don’t have the maturity to appreciate the consequences and therefore can’t give informed consent.
The child would be considered taken advantage of and a victim.
However, what’s wrong with Polyamory? Everyone is of legal age and giving informed consent. Why is it wrong? There are no scientific or health reasons, sociologically and historically only (approx.)6% of societies have practiced monogamy. That leaves only one reason, religious tradition. To say that it’s not Christian is inaccurate. It’s more accurate to say it’s no longer allowed in the Christian religion. Polygamy was practiced by Christians up until about the 700’s AD. The Catholic Church during that century declared it wrong about the same time they decided priests shouldn’t marry. So for approx 600 years, polygamy was practiced by Christians. So, if you’re not Catholic, what’s wrong with it? Please don’t even try to say multi-adult households are bad for children, or we’ll have to kick grandparents out.
Incest if a matter of genetics and ethics. The genetics are self explanatory. Any authority figure shouldn’t compromise a “superior”/”inferior” relationship. That’s a matter of ethics and potential victimization.
Pedeophilia, we’ve already discussed…informed concent.
Beastiality. It’s my understanding that the AIDs virus has a naturally occuring presence in certain species of monkeys and does them no harm. So, how did it cross over to humans?
That’s enough of an reason for me to be against beastiality.
I seem to have run on longer than I intended. Let me leave everyone with one thought. If your only reason for being against something is that “That’s disgusting”, you may want to look for a more solid reason.
Catseye on December 15, 2006 at 12:25 PM
Based on that criteria, please explain the threat to themselves, others or society for a 13 year old girl to engage in a consensual sexual relationship with a 25 year old man. Please keep in mind that the Left has determined that a 13 year old girl need not get parental consent for an abortion.
.
GT on December 15, 2006 at 12:28 PM
That group of Christians must have never heard of the New Testament or read any of Paul’s letters.
GT on December 15, 2006 at 12:31 PM
GT…
The qualifications of the bishop/elder/pastor are: “This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil” (1 Timothy 3:1-7).
Any other interpretation than multiple concurrent wives would mean that someone who divorced and remarried OR a widower couldn’t remarry and be qualified.
Catseye on December 15, 2006 at 12:42 PM
I answered your comment with something equally ridiculous, to show you just how ridiculous it was. Thinking someone wouldn’t subject themselves to ridicule by choosing to be gay is about as retarded argument, it didn’t even deserve me mocking your usage of it.
Back atcha.. I think it’s all been laid out and the people can decide who’s a big fat red guy busting through their wall.
Take a brief walk with me Slu… Is lust a sin? Is not then lusting after, whether acting on it or not, members of the same sex then a sin? Again, this is a pointless argument, you can’t argue to gays with what they believe is simply a “belief system” so you have to attack their position with nature and science, which does a fine job.
Is this a discussion? Wild speculation on what they “may” be able to find one day? I’ve already stated that we can talk if they somehow prove homosexuality (a legitimizing word I hate to even use) to be natural… Though at best “natural” would still likely be a disorder. As “natural” as being born blind or deaf, but again, this is total speculation on your part.
And you have to consider the motivation of those conducting such a study. Look, we’ve got an extreme majority of the country buying in to global warming, and it would seem scientists as well… But any logical person knows what total bull it is. That’s a single example, but let’s not forget the motivations of scientists (mainly funding)… How about the desperate claims that “there may be” life on Mars, over the past decades based on very slim chances of liquid water, that even if evolution and life sprining from non-life were possible, simply having water doesn’t = life, yet every article begins that way… Same with
I don’t know who that’s directed at, I haven’t heard that as anyone’s argument here.
RightWinged on December 15, 2006 at 12:57 PM
I wasn’t talking about lust, I was talking about attraction.
Slublog on December 15, 2006 at 1:00 PM
RightWinged…to quote:
“sorry, but i don’t believe that gay people should have civil unions nor they should be married. it has been a tradition of marriage between a man & a woman for thousands of years. because that will open the door for people who are bi or those who believe in polygamy. it’s sick & disgusting to even have this. the state of New Jersey should be ashamed of itself & that’s why we need a nationwide ban on civil unions & gay marriage, so something like this doesn’t happen again.
Starblazer on December 14, 2006 at 7:46 PM”
Sorry, wasn’t directed at you. Just reacted to the word because my ex-wife used to use it when she had no other argument. So may posts, I remembered it being used, but couldn’t remember who said it.
Catseye on December 15, 2006 at 1:03 PM
Not enough coffee today..
“So many posts”
Catseye on December 15, 2006 at 1:04 PM
RightWinged…
You said:
Instead of answering my comment “with something equally ridiculous…” why don’t you try to simply answer it with something erudite or concise?
It never ceases to amaze me how some people can tell me…someone who is gay…how and why I am this way. But again, it’s good to see that the majority here…even if they don’t agree with it, or like it…see no problem with the original argument here… equal protection under the law.
That’s all that’s being asked…nothing more.
JetBoy on December 15, 2006 at 1:10 PM
I was arguing with “them” on religious grounds, I was discussing your opinion with you on religious grounds. As far as I can tell, your opinion is based on two things. 1) The slippery slope, which I adressed and 2) the “wrongness” of it all, which appears to me to be based on your religious context.
If I’m wrong please correct me here so that I may better understand. If I’m right, and point 2 is based on your religious background… and you are a Christian, I think it’s fair for me to address you as such. If you’re not, well then I humbly take back that entire part of my prior statement.
Huh? I am not proposing you walk blindly at all. I am specifically asking you to open your eyes (and mine) and show me what Jesus says about homosexuality (again if you’re Christian).
Also, FYI, I am an educated Electrical Engineer and pay the mortgage through my work as an IT consultant. I have no problem discussing evolution / creation / Darwanism / cosmology, etc. from a scientific as well as theological point of view.
You have the wrong straw man.
12thman on December 15, 2006 at 1:16 PM
My far was in “I was arguing with ‘them’” should be a wasn’t.
12thman on December 15, 2006 at 1:23 PM
RightWinged said
“Is this a discussion? Wild speculation on what they “may” be able to find one day? I’ve already stated that we can talk if they somehow prove homosexuality (a legitimizing word I hate to even use) to be natural… Though at best “natural” would still likely be a disorder. As “natural” as being born blind or deaf, but again, this is total speculation on your part.”
Were you not the person that stated that this is a “decision” and comparing it to other “alternate” lifestyles? Do you have any studies that aren’t out of the ’40s or ’50s that prove that it’s a decision or a lifestyle? If not, aren’t you speculating even more than you say I am? Do you even know anyone from the community (that you’re aware of)? If so, have you bothered to talk to them about it? If not, aren’t you pre-judging them. Or do you hate the thought of them existing so much you don’t care?
As for motives of researchers, isn’t the fact that people are being murdered and committing suicide because of this “disorder” enough to find out why it exists? If not, how about intellectual curiosity?
Catseye on December 15, 2006 at 1:27 PM
What “rights” do heterosexual couples have that homosexual couples do not have? If its about visiting a loved one in the hospital, cant one get power of attorney? I believe the ultimate goal is legitimacy or some kind of acceptance. I don’t want to see gay parades or marriage. Until they can prove its not a choice, then it is a choice.
infidel on December 15, 2006 at 2:10 PM
That’s because I don’t accept that you are that way, other than by your own decision.
I don’t know what else to say to you 12thman, I just did correct you and I suggest rereading my last comment to you. You can’t argue something based on your belief system to those who don’t share it… So you must use naturalistic arguments to get the job done. This is neither slippery slope or religious.
We’ve established that there are no conclusive studies on either side of this. The simple fact that people claim to be gay doesn’t mean they are, no matter how many times you jump up and down and insist it does. I just have to look at nature and recognize that a penis isn’t designed for an ass, it’s designed for a vagina, and part of an intricately designed process for producing offspring. If you think that it’s just a lucky coincidence for heteros, then I can help you. But nature is nature buddy.
RightWinged on December 15, 2006 at 2:15 PM
(hung up in spam fellas, lil’ help?)
RightWinged on December 15, 2006 at 2:17 PM
I do not know of actual numbers; but I know of three moments that it was a choice.
1 My friend at the time decided to leave her husband and daughter to enter into a lesbian relationship after several internet chatroom conversations. She told me this was something she wanted to do. I was not amused when she begged me to break her conversion to the husband. I flaty refused.
2 Five years ago, the younger brother of a friend decided and announced at a family reunion to become homosexual. He later revealed he did so as a conscious act of rebellion against his father.
3 The most bizarre that I remember was hearing a guy in the college cafeteria proudly proclaim to his friends he was homosexual because he respected women far too much.
allie on December 15, 2006 at 2:17 PM
I point blank asked you a question and you never answered, RightWing. The only thing you’ve done is insult me personally and erect strawmen, i.e.: “You’re like the Christian pastor who doesn’t encourage his congregation to fight science with science in the creation/evolution debate…” and “You’re like any evolutionist who can’t stand debating science with someone who recognizes the creation…”
I am neither one of those two things, which I’ve clearly indicated.
So again I ask you two simple straightforward questions:
1- Are you Christian?
2- Is your opposition summed up by the two factors of a) expanding the definition to included additional unwanted groups, aka the slippery-slope argument and b) the wrongness of homosexuality as determined by religious belief?
I kindly request a direct answer as opposed to insults and strawmen.
12thman on December 15, 2006 at 2:38 PM
“If its about visiting a loved one in the hospital, cant one get power of attorney? I believe the ultimate goal is legitimacy or some kind of acceptance. I don’t want to see gay parades or marriage. Until they can prove its not a choice, then it is a choice.”
1. Why should they have to get a power of attorney?
2. It seems to be your line of reasoning that you grant people not perfectly white bread, rights as long as it isn’t a choice to be different. So, are blacks’ right protected, because they didn’t “choose” to be white?
amerpundit on December 15, 2006 at 2:54 PM
Basically, because there are no studies to prove either way, it is solely a matter of opinion, not fact. Your opinion is that gays shouldn’t be allowed to get married. All previous claims that gay couples aren’t as good parents as straight couples, are just opinion, then.
amerpundit on December 15, 2006 at 2:58 PM
Marriage = union between bride and groom, not between groom and groom.
infidel on December 15, 2006 at 3:04 PM
I generally agree with that, infidel. The only thing that gives me pause is the fact that there are gay “life partners” who are at a serious legal disadvantage when it comes to their children, estate, visitation rights, etc.
To me, civil unions seem to be the best compromise.
Exit question: Should divorcees be allowed to get remarried?
12thman on December 15, 2006 at 3:27 PM
12thman, I’m not sure what you don’t understand.
I suppose I may not have answered directly to your first question, though I think you could have figured it out
Yes.
Again, see previous comments. You act as if these are the only options and I’ve REPEATEDLY EXPLAINED THAT THEY ARE NOT! Whether you accept my reason for opposition or not is irrelevant to your question, because you’re simply choosing to repeatedly ignore what I’ve said and just repeated your question. Again, not because I haven’r provided sufficient answer, because that’s not even the issue… if I didn’t know better I’d think you hadn’t even read my comment.
Opposing homosexuality (again, a word I hate to use because it legitimizes it) based on religious reasons is a good “back up”, but it shouldn’t be the only reason and it certainly shouldn’t be the first or one you’d use to argue against those who probably don’t share your beliefs. I don’t separate “religion” (and the term actually annoys me) from real life. I think the Bible is proven true through observation (i.e. digging up historical sites from the Bible, etc.). So sure, “religion” if we have to call it that is a reason to oppose it, but AS I’VE REPEATEDLY SAID it’s not the main reason, nor should it be when you’re talking about non-believers in the first place. Common sense and nature are plenty reason to oppose it though.
RightWinged on December 15, 2006 at 3:37 PM
RightWinged, thank you for somewhat more direct answers to my questions.
I am hardly ignoring what you have typed at all. I have responded based on precisely what you have typed. From your very first post you ask: “Anyway, where does it stop?”
How you can say polygamists are not part of your main point? And if they are, then I ask again, she would not afford the advatages to homosexuals because we don’t think its appropriate for polygamists or pedophiles? Why are homosexuals to blame for the actions and desires of either of those groups?
As an example, would it be fair to deny African-Americans the right to vote because we’re afraid minors will want it?
Next you move on to what’s “natural”. Now, only a fool would argue about what the sexual organs were created for. But, whenever we Christians talk about nature what we really mean is God. And this is why I brought our Christianity into the discussion.
Even if “they” don’t believe it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t include our faith in the calculus of determining what’s right here. In fact, as Christian, we’re compelled to fall back on our faith.
So I ask you, what do you think about heterosexual divorcees? Should they be allowed to remarry? (hint: see John 4:16-18)
Why do “we” allow that so readily?
I am generally not a fan of homosexuality and gay marriage, per se. But I believe civil unions are a good compromise for this non-theocratic nation. At the end of the day, it’s the love, of Him and one another, that matters most. Right? (Mt 22:36-39)
12thman on December 15, 2006 at 4:34 PM
AP: Preview button please. :)
s/she would/should we/g
12thman on December 15, 2006 at 4:35 PM
Allow me to vent some frustration here…
I am tired of seeing a woman clutch her bag tighter as we approach each other.
I am tired of the PC label African American. I am an American. I was born here; not, another country.
I am tired of being looked at oddly because I try to use English properly and avoid the stupid ebonic slang.
I am tired of the automatic assumption that I can dance, play ball or love watermelon.
The constant use of Black people as an example to support homosexuality is frustrating.
allie on December 15, 2006 at 5:15 PM
FYI: I am black and not the hugest fan of African-American either. I do, however, like it better than black, which is merely a color and not a heritage… and, in particular, prefer it when talking about civil rights issues.
Confusing, I know.
That all being said, would it be better if I had used women in the above example? Or how about non land owners? It’s the same point regardless which group you fill in.
12thman on December 15, 2006 at 5:31 PM
RightWinged, why do you oppose gay marriage/civil unions? You’ve claimed that it would lead to man-on-dog relationships and you’ve claimed that it is disgusting; are there any other reasons you have towards opposing equal marriage rights for gay couples?
(I’m keeping my question as simple as possible so you can’t ignore it and quote other parts of my post)
Nonfactor on December 15, 2006 at 5:43 PM
Sorry, had to drop out for a bit. Got pulled off the ‘puter to work on a honeydo for the girlfriend.
To catch up…
Infidel said:
“What “rights” do heterosexual couples have that homosexual couples do not have? If its about visiting a loved one in the hospital, cant one get power of attorney?”
Yes, somtimes that’s possible, but in some states, if you’re not married you have no rights when the person dies. In some states power of attorney expires upon death. That’s why I said earlier that they can’t even claim the body, unless no one else does. Then, they can lose the children. It doesn’t matter that they may have been a child’s mommy since birth, because they aren’t a “spouse” the birthing parent’s relatives have more rights than the non-blood related mommy. Gee, can’t they adopt before there’s a problem? Not in some states. One of my co-workers is having that issue right now. She may lose the children she’s raised as her own since infancy (one of them for almost 10 years) because she’s not “related” and the mother’s health is going down hill.
RightWinged said:
“We’ve established that there are no conclusive studies on either side of this. The simple fact that people claim to be gay doesn’t mean they are, no matter how many times you jump up and down and insist it does. I just have to look at nature and recognize that a penis isn’t designed for an ass, it’s designed for a vagina, and part of an intricately designed process for producing offspring. If you think that it’s just a lucky coincidence for heteros, then I can help you. But nature is nature buddy. ”
Basically, you’re calling approx. 10% of the American population liars when they discuss whats going on in their own experiences and feelings. Given, as far as reproduction is concerned, penis/vagina is the only natural way. But here’s what your logic says. We should prohibit in-vitro fertilization for childless hetro couples. That’s unnatural. As far as sex for other purposes, are hetrosexual couples “unnatural” for having oral sex…it’s not been to many years ago, that could get them arrested. I know people that would call you a pervert if you made love in any position other than missionary? Because there are no studies that prove other positions are natural, can you prove you’re not a pervert? It’s the same logic you’re clinging to in saying it’s not true until it’s proved by scientific tests. Your own experiences don’t count. You are a liar and a pervert because you choose to let your wife on top.
allie..
Your examples confuse a few peoples choices made for whatever reason with an issue that has cost people their lives throughout the centuries. Do you know why homosexuals are called faggots or fags? Because in old England, a faggot was a bundle of wood used to fuel a fire and the punishment for homosexuality was burning. These people were dehumanize by comparing them to a bundle of wood. Today, there are still cases of “queers” being beaten and killed. There are cases of “queer” teens committing suicide because of the pressure to be “straight”. This isn’t an issue that is exclusively main stream american. It is cross cultural. If this was learned or a choice, do you really think there would be any “gays” in Iran or Egypt?
My bottom line stance is this. Any citizen of this country, not convicted of a felony, should be able to enjoy all the rights of citizenship and no right or privilege should be withheld from them simply because they are different.
Catseye on December 15, 2006 at 8:12 PM
And now the blatant outright lies are where it ends. You Nonfactor are a delusional lying liberal who doesn’t deserve a second of anyone’s time. I never said it would lead to man-dog-relationships, and I never said anything about disgusting. You may want to reread my post without that guy’s balls in your face. Yeah, I went there, only because I’m so sick of liberal dishonesty, and your outright lies in particular, and how blinded you are by your own bs that you can’t even see your own idiocy.
12thman, you aren’t doing it as bad, but you’re still so hardened in your own positions that you can’t even read and comprehend things without turning around and putting words in my mouth or creating positions for me.
10%? LOL! I love when you guys pull out this crap. First of all, you’re lucky if it’s 5%, but keep inflating it… Interesting how the number grew with the fad huh? Oh wait, it’s just that they’re more comfortable to come out of the closet, right? Anyway, yes as far as I can tell at this point, they’re liars. I don’t know why you had to ask, I’ve made that quite clear.
As for all your other “what’s natural” conversation, I see that you’re a 12 year old and I can’t help you. That list of “comparisons” is so beyond ridiculous, I can’t even believe it.
Anyway, carry on folks, I’m tired of going in circles with the same people, breaking things down in terms that small children can understand and having you still want to go in the same circles over and over and over… Maybe you’re desperate to justify your gayness, but I think I’m pretty much done wasting my time with this.
RightWinged on December 15, 2006 at 9:42 PM
(spam filter)
RightWinged on December 15, 2006 at 9:43 PM
I’m asking you to state why you’re against gay marriage without the insults.
If that’s too hard for you, I understand.
Nonfactor on December 15, 2006 at 10:18 PM
yeahh…he speaks about being blinded but i think that if you start a discussion on gay marriage with the belief that homosexuals are an abomination to god and personify sin…you’re probably not in the best position to argue the issue. And saying
or…
really doesn’t help change my mind. Stop wasting time on him…his argument is basically…”ITS JUST NOT NATURAL!!!!”
crr6 on December 16, 2006 at 2:45 AM
I guess there are just some people you can’t argue rationally with.
Nonfactor on December 16, 2006 at 2:57 AM
:) That’s the pot calling the
kettlesnow ball black. I never once put words in your mouth or created your position. That’s what you did to me, repeatedly, while erecting straw men.It’s here in black-and-white for you to read again and see. I simply asked if this was a fair summary of your stance and asked you to clarify any points I missed.
Which of course you haven’t done yet.
Also, it isn’t me that is so set in his opinion. I’ve only come to this belief after years of thought, discussion and study. Anyway, my whole reason for engaging you was to get a better understanding of your stance so that maybe I could have my view on the subject enhanced. Alas you have provided no such insight.
When you can’t answer a simple question without resorting to hate and slander you have completely destroyed all credibility on the topic of discussion, my friend.
12thman on December 16, 2006 at 6:52 AM
I am a Catholic. My church recognizes Marriage as a Blessed Sacrament. Do not tread on MY religion and I will happily support Homosexual Civil Unions. They also must have the same responsibilities that married people do. TANSTAAFL.
I’m still on the fence about their raising children. I like the idea that they would give kids a home via adoption, yet I recognize the studies that tell us children need both a Mommy and a Daddy.
DannoJyd on December 16, 2006 at 7:35 AM
And I’ve repeatedly explained it to you without insults, but you refuse to accept it and continue to lie… I have no reason to be civil with you anymore you POS.
And just shut up 12thman, you know what you did. You presented what you believe to be the only possible arguments against gays and you tried to force me in to a box and choose from the multiple choice you gave, proving you refused to read anything I had been saying because you’re coming at this with your own agenda.
RightWinged on December 16, 2006 at 12:20 PM
Unbelievable that this thread is still going. I quit this debate after Nonissue actually tried to compare the debate on gay marriage with the treatment of blacks in the south. After picking up my jaw from the floor I knew there was nothing to be gained or learned from him.
thedecider on December 16, 2006 at 1:15 PM
What kind of way is that to hold a discussion? And…
That’s completely false. I presented what my understanding was of what you said. I even asked you to please correct me where I was wrong. Here is exactly what I said:
If you feel trapped you need to consider the possibilty that it is your logic rather than my questions which is giving rise to the sensation.
/fin
12thman on December 16, 2006 at 2:06 PM
Hilarious, and to think you might actually hold some credibility among some people here.
The truth is you haven’t clearly stated your position; I see it, 12thman sees it, and anyone reading this thread sees it. If you think you’ve stated it clearly point to the post where your position is flatly laid out, but I’m warning you, you won’t find it.
In this thread you’ve stated that I’m a homosexual (I’m not), you’ve called me and others here (even those who would agree with you on numerous other issues) ignorant, stupid, a troll, a POS, and others. You’re acting irrational; you need to calm down, look at the topic subjectively, and then come back and have a rational debate. Good-bye, RightWinged, I hope you get better.
Nonfactor on December 16, 2006 at 3:43 PM
I didn’t compare the two at all; you’re stretching my words into a straw man you can abuse. I used the analogy posted in this thread that “gay people are ‘anathema’ to normal society,” and stated (truthfully) that “black people were ‘anathema’ to normal society in the 1800s.” That in no way is a comparison to the treatment of blacks in the South.
The only comparison to race I did make was that, in my opinion, being black (or white, or Asian, or German) is genetic as is being gay.
Nonfactor on December 16, 2006 at 3:48 PM
WRONG! Here, copied and pasted for you, are your exact words:
You absolutely DID draw a comparison. Read your words again. The comparison is as plain as the nose on your face.
thedecider on December 16, 2006 at 5:41 PM
I know what I said, decider, but I did not compare the treatment of gays currently to the treatment of blacks in the South in the 1800s.
I stated, truthfully, that blacks were “anathema” to normal society in the 1800s just like you stated that gays were “anathema” to normal society today.
I admit the comparison and still think it is valid (unless you want to tell me blacks weren’t anathema to society in the 1800s), but I did not compare treatment and it wasn’t a comparison based on race. The racial comparison I did make was that being black (or white, or Asian, etc.) is similar to being gay because (in my opinion) they are both genetic.
Nonfactor on December 16, 2006 at 9:26 PM
hmmm… I didn’t realize “genetics” were matters of opinion. I guess in liberal land they are.
RightWinged on December 17, 2006 at 7:17 PM
As opposed to your opinion that being gay is a choice or your opinion that I’m gay or your opinion… you see where I’m going here?
Nonfactor on December 18, 2006 at 12:18 AM
Hmmm…a far cry from your earlier assertion:
Well it’s one or the other isn’t it? Unfortunately you can’t seem to come to a conclusion on it – however, I’m quite certain you made a comparison and it doesn’t matter if you were arguing a point on “genetics” or anything else. It’s a disgusting comparison to make and you really should be ashamed.
thedecider on December 18, 2006 at 12:33 AM
One more comment and then I’m not posting on this debate anymore. The reason (just so you may get it) that I find your comparison so abhorrent is that blacks were denied ALL rights. They were bought and sold. They were tortured. They were treated as non-human. They weren’t just denied marriage, they were denied everything. Your very liberal and ignorant attempt to elevate the gay debate to the suffering of blacks in America is nothing less than repugnant. For this, you are absolute scum, and nothing you say in your attempt to legitimize such an arrogant, ignorant debate, means anything. Apologize and be done with it.
thedecider on December 18, 2006 at 1:04 AM
decider, you said that I compared the treatment of blacks in the 1800s to the treatment of gays. If you can quote where I stated that then I’ll eat my hat. You’re taking my words out of context and looking stupid while doing it.
How is it disgusting? Are you saying that blacks weren’t “anathema” to the South in the 1880s? Are you saying that gays aren’t “anathema” to society today?
How convenient.
P.S. I’m black.
Nonfactor on December 18, 2006 at 3:46 AM
Do you think that I didn’t know that would be you response? By the way, incase no one has ever told you, liberals are EXTREMELY predictable, and we know what you’re going to say long before you say it (which is why we always like to “question the timing” of everything).
My opinion that being is a choice is admittedly my opinion, though I feel it’s supported by the evidence. Whether you think it is or not, I don’t care… But I would never say:
Genetics are NOT A MATTER OF OPINION. You’re a genius by the way.
RightWinged on December 18, 2006 at 9:22 PM
Kind of like you “knew” I was gay, right?
Evidence? Such as? When you talk to gay people do they tell you it’s a choice? Was your heterosexuality a choice? Et cetera. You have nothing to support your argument, you simply don’t think it’s natural so you’re crusading against it.
And I thought you’d left? Don’t you have other threads to troll?
Nonfactor on December 18, 2006 at 11:04 PM
Yes I know, the ability to produce children is just coincidence and isn’t evidence that heterosexuality is the natural way. You’ve convinced me based on…. because homos claim to be that way? Nice work.
Oh, and by the way, nice job on the predictable liberal dodge, of my point that you talking about your “opinion” of what is genetic. Again, GENES ARE NOT A MATTER OF OPINION! As I said, it’s my opinion that being gay isn’t natural, but it’s based on what I THINK seems obvious. You can continue to think that the ability to produce children is just a lucky coincidence for heterosexuals, and I can’t stop you from being a retard.
RightWinged on December 19, 2006 at 10:54 PM
My job wasn’t to convince you. I knew I wouldn’t be able to convince you after your first post. I just wanted to give my opinion and know where you stood on the issues and why. You still haven’t given a straight answer.
Don’t you see the hypocrisy here? You’re claiming (in your opinion) that homosexuality (and heterosexuality) aren’t in our DNA.
I seriously laughed when I read that.
The “evidence” you have yet to state. I’ve stated why I believe homosexuality and heterosexuality are genetic qualities; you’ve stated why you feel you’re right without stating what those reasons may be.
What a great way to end your post.
“A positive attitude will not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.”
-Herm Albright
Nonfactor on December 20, 2006 at 1:31 AM
I’ve repeatedly stated the evidence that I BELIEVE supports the idea that gay isn’t natural. You choose not to accept it, and that’s fine.
BUT AGAIN – GENES ARE NOT A MATTER OF OPINION FOR YOU TO DECIDE! WHAT DON’T YOU UNDERSTAND?!
I know, you are incapable of a level of comprehension beyond that of a 5 year old and I made a point similar to this earlier, but “not being gay” isn’t “genetic” it’s just the way it is – because it’s the way it is. It would not be a trait reflected in DNA like eye color or hair color, etc. Just as “ugly” or “good looking” aren’t in the genes, as beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Even past generations found different things attractive. But something just “is” so it has nothing to do with genes. Get it? You don’t have to accept it, but are you at least being able to wrap your mind around it yet genius?
So you can call me a hypocrite because you simply don’t understand all you want, whenever I point out that YOU SAID your OPINION about it being in the genes, is retarded, because genes are not a matter of opinion…. because you think somehow that I’m making the same claim about heterosexuality… BUT I’M NOT. I’m stating that something is a given, therefore it has nothing to do with genes.
(To avoid the spam filter) Reproductive organs are there for a reason, in two different sexes, uniquely designed to work together to produce children. Again, you can be a total retard and pretend that it’s all just a big coincidence and insist that it’s still something in their genes that makes they heterosexuals (funny that homos can’t naturally produce children, yet they maintain the capabilities, if they’d only get together with people of the opposite sex… what a coincidence!), but then you’re completely without help.
And for the record, I have repeatedly made my case, your case is…. what? Because homos claim they are naturally gay, that means they are? How many criminals have you ever seen confess to their crime when pulled over on COPS? Why is it that virtually any kid you take to get tested will be diagnosed with ADD and stuck on medicine, when this wasn’t even in existence years ago… but they’ll write the prescription because every kid claims to not be able to concentrate. In reality it’s because school sucks and it’s boring, and different kids are at different levels. But a kid saying he can’t concentrate doesn’t mean he’s got ADD. I could go on with literally millions of examples of why your “logic” is ridiculous.
RightWinged on December 20, 2006 at 2:36 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2