Breaking: New Jersey approves gay civil unions
posted at 7:12 pm on December 14, 2006 by Ian
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?
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: 1 2 Next »
I am totally okay with this. I have no problem with gay couples being given the same property rights, it’s when they use the word marriage that I start getting jittery…and I look forward to the resulting “that’s my armoire, you’ll never get it” custody battles. Look out divorce court, there’s a ratings mammoth waiting on the sidelines.
StoutRepublican on December 14, 2006 at 7:16 PM
Agreed. Gay couples who get a civil union should be allowed to have the same tax rights married get.
Ian on December 14, 2006 at 7:18 PM
I don’t see anything wrong with civil unions. A valid, committed partnership needs the same legal rights as married couples. Come to think of it, didn’t this gay marriage thing start out as a quest for civil unions? Somewhere along the line it got turned into marriage and here we are.
As an aside … I bet lawyers somewhere are drooling. They’ll figure out a way to make some cash out of it. Maybe John Edwards can give the civil union lawyers some tips.
darwin on December 14, 2006 at 7:20 PM
What does this do to the kids in the picture? Do gay parents have the same rights to adopt as normal man/woman parents?
I don’t believe gay couples are as good a home structure for kids to grow up under as nature intended. ( Thx OReilly).
shooter on December 14, 2006 at 7:25 PM
Has it been proven, though?
Ian on December 14, 2006 at 7:28 PM
Wow cool. I was apprehensive about saying “good” here but uhh.. Good!
I live in Jersey, glad to see civil unions get passed. I could go into why, but that would take a few paragraphs and I’m lazy right now =P
Dash on December 14, 2006 at 7:28 PM
Another reason to never move to Jersey. I love Pennsylvania!
danarchy on December 14, 2006 at 7:31 PM
I think most people are fine with gay civil unions because they don’t want to look like the person who wants to not give rights to people. What I have a question about is if they have the exact same rights as a married couple and they want to call it a marriage, why not just let them call it a marriage?
Nonfactor on December 14, 2006 at 7:35 PM
To be fair the NJ Supreme Court ordered the legislature to choose between this or outright Gay Marriage.
Number 2 on December 14, 2006 at 7:36 PM
Because then we’d be heading for a disaster.
Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies. Rivers and seas boiling, forty years of darkness, earthquakes, volcanoes. Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together – mass hysteria.
Slublog on December 14, 2006 at 7:37 PM
Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies. Rivers and seas boiling, forty years of darkness, earthquakes, volcanoes. Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together – mass hysteria.
Slublog on December 14, 2006 at 7:37 PM
You forgot the frogs.
Nonfactor on December 14, 2006 at 7:39 PM
Are you the keymaster?
Slublog on December 14, 2006 at 7:40 PM
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
also gay people should not have the same rights & benefits as straight married people have.
Starblazer on December 14, 2006 at 7:49 PM
One could argue there’s also been a tradition of polygamy for thousands of years, but that, like your statement, has nothing to do with gay civil unions/marriage.
Is this just something you think would happen or you know would happen? Why/How?(And bisexual people get married all the time, so do gay people, just to men/women they aren’t really in love with)
Why don’t you think gay couples should have marriage rights? Is it disgusting to think of a woman seeing a woman she loves at the hospital after she was injured in a car accident? Is that really so despicable we should have a nation-wide ban?
Nonfactor on December 14, 2006 at 7:53 PM
Nice one, Nonfactor.
Ian on December 14, 2006 at 8:02 PM
Haven’t seen any gay couples naturally conceive… The day that happens, then we can talk.
Anyway, where does it stop? O’Reilly does make a great point about this… why should it be just gays? What about polygamists? Who is the government to say gays are legit, and they aren’t? What if I want to marry a dog? I’m self employed and the Democrats have driven all insurance companies out of the state. I don’t even make much money, and I certainly can’t even consider the roughtly $400 base price to get private health insurance up here. Why can’t I get “civil union” benefits from my parents or Aunt, or whoever?
RightWinged on December 14, 2006 at 8:05 PM
(to be clear, I’m not pressing for polygamists to get marriange rights, etc… just making the equal rights point… you open it up to one alternative – ALTERNATIVE TO NATURE – you have to open it up to all. Regardless of whether you choose to believe there is such thing as naturally gay people (I don’t believe there are) the fact is the fact that we have two sexes that that have…. let’s say “interlocking” parts… isn’t a coincidence folks.
RightWinged on December 14, 2006 at 8:07 PM
BECAUSE A MARRIAGE IS DEFINED AS ONE MAN & ONE WOMAN & yes there should be a nationwide ban on civil unions & gay marriage. MARRIAGE IS NOT A RIGHT, IT’S A PRIVILEGE.
Starblazer on December 14, 2006 at 8:07 PM
Governments give incentives (rights) to married couples historically because it is beneficial to society.
Traditional married couples are more likely to be stable and law abiding (this is why your car insurance goes down if you get hitched, same principle). No reason this wouldnt be the same for Homosexual couples, so no reason they shouldnt have the same associated rights in my view.
Traditional married couples produce offspring, which is a BIG one! And provide a stable environment for them (generally speaking). Very beneficial for any society obviously. Now homosexual couples can also have offspring, with the help of a little science, same as a hetero couple with fertility problems. As for the environment, I’m inclined to believe that while it may not be 100% optimal, it’s close enough… and nobody has proved it either way that I’ve seen, so I have no problem with the government granting the same benefits.
Dash on December 14, 2006 at 8:08 PM
Will a proponent of same-sex marriage please explain why the government should be required to recognize same-sex marriages … but not multi-partner marriages?
aunursa on December 14, 2006 at 8:10 PM
O’Reilly last night said there were many studies done and ‘all’ supported man and woman households, saying they were better for the child. A gay advocate on the show quoted one other study stating the opposite, that 2 moms or 2 dads were just fine for a child.
Maybe you have tape from last night? O’ did mention a couple opf names of groups, but not real convincingly and it was hard to hear him at the time.
I have not kept any searched info or sites, altho I did check into it some 5-6 months ago.
Easy search material as I remember.
shooter on December 14, 2006 at 8:10 PM
Why stop there? Some lonely woman in New Jersey might want to marry her cat. Doesn’t she have the right?
*cough*
thedecider on December 14, 2006 at 8:14 PM
So you choose to be straight? Or do you believe all people are born straight and gay people just choose to be subjugated by society?
And the debate about gay marriage isn’t about polygamists or people who practice bestiality. If you want to start a debate about those topics you’re free to do so.
Nonfactor on December 14, 2006 at 8:16 PM
Oh Yeah, I’m pretty sure God knew what he was doing.
as RW put it so gently…
“interlocking” parts… isn’t a coincidence folks.
shooter on December 14, 2006 at 8:16 PM
You actually didn’t answer my questions. If you don’t want to just say so.
Nonfactor on December 14, 2006 at 8:17 PM
Oh, come on, you know what my point was. Nothing to do how children are made, but whether gay couples should be allowed to adopt.
The slippery slope argument? I didn’t know that there was a huge movement for man and animal to have a civil union.
I guess it’s just me, but I don’t see the big deal with a civil union. It’s not marriage.
Ian on December 14, 2006 at 8:18 PM
gay people just choose to be subjugated by society?
Who left the door open?
shooter on December 14, 2006 at 8:19 PM
shooter, all evidence points to the fact that gay people don’t choose to be gay, but if you want to deny that fact because it makes it easier for you to deal with not allowing a person privileges you are allowed you’re free to do so, I just think it’s cruel.
Nonfactor on December 14, 2006 at 8:22 PM
Because, in fact, “most” people aren’t comfortable with it.
thedecider on December 14, 2006 at 8:29 PM
Most people aren’t fine with the term “gay marriage,” but most people are fine with giving gay couples “civil unions with marriage rights;” it’s all semantics.
Nonfactor on December 14, 2006 at 8:31 PM
A slippery slope indeed
Republicans in the Senate tried but failed to amend the legislation to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, so a pathway still remains open for allowing full marriage for same-sex couples. Many legislators said they hoped and expected to enact a marriage bill eventually.
Advocates of same-sex marriage said they would pursue that goal immediately.
News2Use on December 14, 2006 at 8:32 PM
There it is, the slipperly slope…One sure sign you’ve lost an argument and have no legitamate points to make.
JaHerer22 on December 14, 2006 at 8:34 PM
Hmmm…but at least I can spell. Actually, JaHerer, that WAS the point.
thedecider on December 14, 2006 at 8:36 PM
If it were the people of New Jersey that had decided Civil Unions I would be ok. However, it was the New Jersey judicial branch that mandated this.
Jay on December 14, 2006 at 8:37 PM
You cant be light in the loafers and win the demography war.
infidel on December 14, 2006 at 8:39 PM
My bad decider. Spell check has crippled me, without it I am nothing…
JaHerer22 on December 14, 2006 at 8:41 PM
The people shouldn’t vote on everything; the rights of the minority are one of those things.
I’d still like to know why affording gay couples marrige rights is directly bad for society (please avoid the slippery slope fallacy).
Nonfactor on December 14, 2006 at 8:43 PM
Sorry Ian, my comment wasn’t supposed to come off as a slam at you, but you were responding to a comment about what “nature intended” so it gave me an opening to say what I wanted to say. Again, not directed at your specific comment
As for the animal thing, that was an extreme and a joke, but what about polygamists, that’s a legitimate argument, no? 10 years from now, polygamists can argue that they deserve the same rights too… What argument is there against that? Again, I don’t argue for it, but if you accept civil unions for gays, why not for any other situation (i.e. the parents, aunt scenarios I already mentioned)
Ah the old emotional, not logical, argument. Are people who dress like gangsters or die their hair green and get all tatted and pierced born that way? No but they’re choosing to be “subjugated by society”. The “why would they choose to be gay, and deal with societal condemnation” argument is so empty and ridiculous, I can’t believe I even briefly responded.
And what does your second paragraph mean? How is it not a debate about polygamists? Why shouldn’t they get equal rights? Again, not by my standards, but if you argue for equal rights for gays, who are you to say the same rights shouldn’t be available for polygamists or any other alternative lifestyle?
And there is no evidence that “points to the fact taht gay people don’t choose to be gay”, you just need to believe that to support your position. Again, have them naturally produce a child and get back to me. Or find a gay gene. Or explain to me how it’s just coincidence that there are two sexes and the parts that make the difference between them are the very ones used to produce children.
Also, it’s an interesting argument for a Creator that is too deep to get in to here, but why is it that heterosexual sex is the process by which we create offspring, yet it’s also arguably the best physical feeling a human can experience, making it a tough temptation, even though running around banging different people every night instead of having sex with the man/woman you are married to. And consider all the STDs that afflict mainly those who don’t stay faithful to their one partner (not in the gay way) aka spouse. Again, that’s a whole other deeper issue, but I’ve just always found it funny that the evolutionist would have you believe that we “evolved” two sexes who were necessary to naturally come together with perfectly designed parts to produce offspring, and that it happens to feel better than anything else, etc. Just something to think about.
RightWinged on December 14, 2006 at 8:46 PM
Heterosexual couples who cant get married (maybe religous reasons) should be afforded the same rights. Equal rights, not special rights! Everybody can marry, have a sex change if you need to.
infidel on December 14, 2006 at 8:51 PM
The slippery slope argument is a valid one. Once the definitition of marriage is changed it can be changed again. It opens the doors wide open for polygamy, incest marriage, etc. Gay people already have the same marriage rights as heterosexuals..a gay male can marry a female just like a heterosexual male can marry a female. What they are wanting is special rights, and once those are granted…you might as well start granting them to the polygamist.
Actually, the polygamist have an even better argument within the First Amendment. There are many religions, including Islam, that allows or encourages multiple marriages.
Jay on December 14, 2006 at 8:54 PM
What happened to my comment?
Jay on December 14, 2006 at 8:55 PM
Hmmm…let me start over then.
What they want is special rights. If you give that you open the door for the polygamists. They have an even better argument based in the First Amendment. Many religions, including Islam, allows or encourages multiple marriages.
Jay on December 14, 2006 at 8:57 PM
Now my comment is there…must have gotten caught in limbo somewhere.
Jay on December 14, 2006 at 8:59 PM
“The people shouldn’t vote on everything; the rights of the minority are one of those things.”
That is complete B.S. Constitutional rights are voted on all the time. Those amendments didn’t pass themselves. And there’s plenty of reason for such rights to be voted on by the majority – in order to uphold the rule of law. A population that doesn’t believe in laws that are imposed on them won’t obey the law (see Reconstruction, for example).
Stupid ideas about minority rights never requiring consent of the majority is a great way for the majority to get angry pretty darn quick.
Sydney Carton on December 14, 2006 at 9:00 PM
The slippery slope argument is never valid because it can be used at any time to argue any side of any position. It offers no facts, only speculation of what may happen in the future. Name an issue, any issue from abortion, to farm subsidies, to speed limits and you can use the slippery slope to argue either side.
This isn’t BS and it has much historical precedent. One of the original roles of the judicial system and the seperation of powers was to protect minority rights from the majority. I don’t have time to look it up, but it is anything but BS.
JaHerer22 on December 14, 2006 at 9:09 PM
A guy makes one, little slippery-slope argument and, the next thing you know, JaHerer22′s telling him he has no “legitimate” points to make and he’s “lost” the whole argument. JaHerer22, if there were no slippery slopes, I’d join you in condemning slippery-slope arguments, but instead, I’m going to urge you go find some dry, level ground.
Kralizec on December 14, 2006 at 9:14 PM
I’m standing at the top of the hill, if you want some help getting up the slope I’ll glady give you a hand.
JaHerer22 on December 14, 2006 at 9:21 PM
And Ian, I don’t quite know how to say this, but I think gay civil unions could hurt my project to get Western nations to raise their birthrates, and I’m scared, Ian. Will you cuddle me?
Kralizec on December 14, 2006 at 9:28 PM
I’m still not understanding the point of bringing up polygamy in a debate about gay marriage. Laws aren’t passed or not passed based on a slippery slope of what might happen.
How was that post emotional and not logical? I asked two questions and stated that polygamy and bestiality don’t have to do with gay marriage.
It sounds like you believe gay people simply choose to be gay, you don’t understand why they do that, but you just know that they do that and thus being gay isn’t natural.
When someone starts a thread about polygamy I’d be glad to discuss this with you.
So you’d be on the boat with the people who believe the Civil Rights Act should have been voted on by the states? Or am I wrong?
P.S. The slippery slope is a fallacy, not an argument.
Nonfactor on December 14, 2006 at 9:38 PM
“This isn’t BS and it has much historical precedent. One of the original roles of the judicial system and the seperation of powers was to protect minority rights from the majority. I don’t have time to look it up, but it is anything but BS.”
Did the Court give women the right to vote? Did the Court free the slaves? Did the Court create a right to equal protection? Did the Court give 18 year olds the right to vote? No. People VOTED on those things as Constitutional Amendments. Courts protect minority rights of course, but those “minority rights” exist because the majority decided to give them those rights.
In fact, if a strong majority of Americans desired it, they could repeal the 14th Amendment and make “separate but not equal” the law of the land again. I’m not saying they will, but they COULD. And the Courts would be powerless to stop them.
Ideologes of all stripes seem to forget that America is a democracy. And in a democracy, the majority always, always, always wins. If so-called “gay marriage” stands, it’s because the majority wants it to stand. In NJ, that might be the case. In other states, it looks as if the majority are amending their state Constitutions pretty darn quick to say how they feel about “gay marriage.” And if those majorities change their minds in 20 years, those amendments could be repealed.
Courts can only push the majority around for so long before people start pushing back. Hasn’t ANYONE here read the Federalist papers? Sheesh.
Sydney Carton on December 14, 2006 at 9:39 PM
Nonfactor: “So you’d be on the boat with the people who believe the Civil Rights Act should have been voted on by the states? Or am I wrong?”
Your question is nonsensical. It is irrelevant, I don’t know what it implies, and I don’t see how “states” have anything to do with a federal law pursuant to Congressional authority under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment, which by the way was passed by a MAJORITY of Congress – hence validating the truth that minority rights exist because the majority gives them those rights.
My point again, being, your idea that minority rights shouldn’t be voted in is completely stupid. Where would they come from, if the democracy doesn’t vote on them? An autocrat? A dictator? The Courts – an oligarchy of lawyers? Do you think the majority will sit there and let that happen forever? Or do you think the rule of law is a figment of your imagination?
Sydney Carton on December 14, 2006 at 9:44 PM
Given many of these responses, one has to wonder whatever happen to any sense of morality and Right & Wrong.
If there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, then what is wrong with polygamy?
And, who’s to say its wrong for a 13 year old girl to shack up with a 30 year old man. Of course its perverted, but if a 13 year old girl can get knocked up and have an abortion without her parent’s consent or knowledge why have any rules or standards at all?
Where do we draw the line?
.
GT on December 14, 2006 at 9:48 PM
No the court did not do all those things, but they upheld them. I don’t see your point, are you saying that people vote on some things that the court doesn’t decide? Yes, you’d be right, but what does this have to do with people voting to limit the rights of the minority? The court would simply overturn the vote once it was cast (an example of this happened recently in California where a huge tax was placed on cigarettes and the courts overturned it).
Powerless if you ignore judicial precedent and judicial review.
Wrong. Our Democracy (and in particular our judicial system) was set up to protect the rights of the minority from the majority. It’s part of the reason why if Bumhug, Nevada voted to stone a scientologist preaching in his home it would be overturned by the courts (despite the scientologists in Bumhug, Nevada being a minority).
The majority on the Supreme Court, yes.
And believe it or not the court can rule that those state amendments are unconstitutional if they so chose.
Are you advocating an overthrow of the judicial branch if they don’t conform to the beliefs of the majority? Yikes!
Nonfactor on December 14, 2006 at 9:50 PM
RIGHT ON! I mean, if we don’t define what is morally right or wrong here in America who knows what will happen to the world! We could have 70 year olds raping babies, we could have people marrying cats, and we could have black men marrying white women!!!! FOR GOD’S SAKE THINK OF THE CHILDREN! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
Nonfactor on December 14, 2006 at 9:53 PM
And let me add one more thing before I take a much needed sanity break. If the only response to my previously asked question:
Why don’t you think gay couples should have marriage rights? Is it disgusting to think of a woman seeing a woman she loves at the hospital after she was injured in a car accident? Is that really so despicable we should have a nation-wide ban?
is that it may lead to polygamists wanting the same rights or that it may lead to (and I quote here) “13 year old girl to shack up with a 30 year old.” I pity the movement against gay marriage, because it’s failing, and failing quickly.
Nonfactor on December 14, 2006 at 9:58 PM
For starters Nonfactor, your 9:38 PM comment was mostly a reaction to my comments, however the last quote was from someone else on the “should we vote on everything or not” issue, and has nothing to do with what I’m talking about.
As for the rest, we’re just going to go in a circle here, so all I can say is read previous comments. You can hide from the polygamy argument all you want, but it’s there, and it’s just the tip of the iceberg. Anyway if you want to talk about what’s natural, again, come back when you show me homos producing children naturally with eachother or you find a gay gene, or when you explain how the uniquely designed process and machines for sex producing children is just a coincidence.
RightWinged on December 14, 2006 at 10:00 PM
Looks like Nonfactor doesn’t have any kids of his own. I wonder if he’ll feel the same when he has a daughter and she starts sneaking out at night.
.
GT on December 14, 2006 at 10:03 PM
Nonfactor,
Respectfully, you don’t have a fricking clue what you’re talking about. This is most evident in my example of repealing the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment, in case you’re not aware, says that all people shall have due process and equal protection under the law. If the 14th Amendment were to be repealed by another Constitutional amendment (like Prohibition’s amendment was repealed), the Court would be powerless to stop it. And you said it response: “Powerless if you ignore judicial precedent and judicial review.”
Wrong. If the 14th Amendment were repealed, EVERY SINGLE SUPREME COURT CASE making a holding under the 14th Amendment would be invalid as a force of law. What that means is that it would be like those Court decisions were never made.
Think about it. What if the 14th Amendment were repealed? Would you sue? How? Under what grounds? That your rights are violated? What rights? Those guaranteed under the 14th amendment, which was just repealed? Those guaranteed under another amendment? In practical terms, repealing the 14th Amendment would overturn hundreds, if not thousands, of Supreme Court decisions. There is nothing the Court could do to stop that. Would they write a decision saying that “all those hundreds of other cases in which we grounded our holding on our interpretation of the 14th Amedment, which was just repealed, is still good law.”?? Please. It doesn’t even pass the laugh test.
“Are you advocating an overthrow of the judicial branch if they don’t conform to the beliefs of the majority? Yikes!”
What do you think a Constitutional Amendment, practically speaking, does? Oh, and by the way, not to frighten you, but the majority overrules the Court all the time. It happens in cases where the Court interprets the specific words within a law, and only within a law (not in the case where a law is interpreted according to the constitution). If the Congress doesn’t like the way the Court interpreted the law, they just re-write the law. This happens all the time.
Sydney Carton on December 14, 2006 at 10:13 PM
I know, I just didn’t quote their name when responding, should have to make it more clear.
I’m not hiding away from it. I’m stating that a discussion on polygamy shouldn’t be included in a discussion on gay marriage, and it falls under the slippery slope argument and the only thing you can use to back it up is saying “well this might happen” or “i think this will probably happen.” Arguments like those get nowhere and I’m not going to debate something because you think it may or may not come up sometime in the future.
Can you give a list on why you’re against gay marriage so I can understand your view a bit more clearly? Are you against it because two people of the same sex can’t have children with each other or are you against it because scientists haven’t found a “gay gene” in people (P.S. They haven’t found a straight gene either, and before 2002 we didn’t have a gene for sweaty palms) or are you against it because a woman can’t stick her vagina into another women’s vagina (I guess dildos would be perfectly natural though because they match up). Is that your argument or is there any more to it?
Look, I don’t want to talk about thirteen year olds sleeping with thirty year olds, maybe later.
I agree. I made a mistake. You’re correct, if sections of the U.S. Constitution were abolished the court couldn’t intervene later stating that abolishing the Constitution is against the Constitution. I was thinking of ordinary laws.
And let me remind you that the courts were designed not to be influenced by people, the public or legislators. If a Constitutional amendment was made banning gay marriage and another one made banning black people from owning a stapler the courts could not overturn it, but if a law is passed (by the voters or legislature for example) banning gay marriage the courts can overturn it.
Nonfactor on December 14, 2006 at 10:36 PM
simple Nonfactor – 1)Marriage IS defined as one man & one woman. 2)Marriage is a privilege, NOT a right. 2) if 2 heterosexauls are married then they have rights & benefits as a married couple, civil unions isn’t a legal marriage, there for, gays DON’T or shouldn’t have the same rights & benefits as straight married couples, because THEY’RE NOT married. if Bush would have done his job & passed a bill saying tht marriage is defined as 1 man & 1 woman, then this wouldn’t be happenning. but no, he didn’t & now liberal judges are trying destroy the the essence of marriage by pulling this crap.
Starblazer on December 14, 2006 at 10:45 PM
Again Nonfactor, you need to make clear who you’re quoting and responding to, but that’s the least of your troubles.
I’m not familiar with Nonfactor, can someone here tell me if he’s just another liberal troll so I don’t waste too much time on him… I mean, the “logic” he’s putting up certainly seems like the insanity we’d expect from libs, and I can’t comprehend any sane person making the comments he is, so I’m beginning to think he must be a lib.
I didn’t quote your other chasing your tail comments, but in them you’re still hiding from the polygamy argument. It’s not separate, as much as you’d like it to be. It’s an equal protection issue. It’s not the slippery slope, it’s a simple question, should polygamists and all other alternative lifestyles be allowed the same rights? You obviously seem to think being gay is natural, and not a decision, but who are you to say it’s not the same for every other alternative?
But in regards to the section I quoted… A straight gene? Are you effing serious? What is wrong with you dude!? It wouldn’t be a gene, because it’s just the way it is. Again, if you can explain to me that the fact we have two sexes with precisely designed parts necessary for producing offspring is just a coincidence, I’m all ears, but the fact is YOU CAN’T, because it’s NATURAL. You aren’t going to have a gene for it. There would only even be a chance for a gene for it if there were genes for other types of sexuality, to show there is a difference in the genetic make-up. Wow, and I’m the one on my fifth beer!?
And dildos!? WHAT!? When has a dildo ever produced a child!?!?!? Are you even aware of how (literally) retarded you sound?! I am rarely shocked at the stupidity of people, but you’ve just surpassed the usual suspects in idiocy here.
RightWinged on December 14, 2006 at 10:57 PM
the movement against gay marriage will succeed.
Starblazer on December 14, 2006 at 10:59 PM
gee, Nonfactor, if the movement is failing like you said it is,then why only 3 states do have “gay marriage” or “civil unions” and the other 48 states have banned gay marriage. doesn’t seem to me that the movement against gay marriage isn’t failing at all.
Starblazer on December 14, 2006 at 11:04 PM
well if those of you that support this, then move to Canada or other countries that allow gay marriage & the rest of us will enjoy the “TRUE” meaning of marriage
Starblazer on December 14, 2006 at 11:06 PM
There was an interesting piece in the harvard journal for law and public policy a few months back talking about how canada has eliminated “biological parent” and replaced it with “legal parent” because of a recent gay marriage act up there.
think about the legal ramifications of that, if hetero marriages fall under that same legal umbrella. not good. not good at all.
give the gays their civil unions, just make damn sure there’s a separate body of law covering them.
the laws covering hetero marriage now should not be tampered with nor applied to gay unions.
Metro on December 14, 2006 at 11:14 PM
Metro – i agree with you on the last part of your post.
Starblazer on December 14, 2006 at 11:19 PM
No.
Is there no room for dissent in your worldview?
Slublog on December 14, 2006 at 11:30 PM
has anyone who’s using the slippery slope argument attended college and taken a 100 level logic or politics class? One of the first things you learn is that the slippery slope argument is almost entirely a fallacy, it relies entirely on speculation and hypothetical reasoning,not arguments directly relevant in real life. Is it actually realistic or practical that a large movement for polygamy or dog-marrying will occur in America? The obvious answer is no. Its simply not an issue.
Out of curiousity are there any atheists against gay marriage who have posted? Just wondering.
crr6 on December 14, 2006 at 11:30 PM
Yes it is.
No it isn’t.
Obviously not.
It appears you’re going to continue harping on polygamy, so to get past this issue I’ll give you my opinion on the issue. The desire to have multiple partners is just that, a desire, not a natural attraction. It is possible there could be a natural attraction towards animals, but so far there is no evidence to show that there is (there is for gay people; just because people debate it doesn’t mean it isn’t true), and animals cannot consent to a civil union or marriage (I can’t believe I actually wrote that).
That’s not how it works (people have sweaty palms because there’s a gene for that, not “because it’s just the way it is”; there’s not a gene for an actual penis, but there is a gene determining whether someone is male or female). There are genes and parts of chromosomes for every characteristic of the human body; the problem is we haven’t figured out what many of these DNA strands do.
Name a negative ramification of that because I’m having trouble thinking of one.
Wow. Do you support a separate body of law covering blacks and whites too? What about Jews and Muslims? What about men and women?
Nonfactor on December 14, 2006 at 11:45 PM
Aw, its like a married couple. lol
EnochCain on December 15, 2006 at 12:27 AM
Well, I’ve done a quick search and determined that you ARE infact a deranged liberal troll here Nonfactor, so I wasted a lot of time trying to be civil while you spouted your insanity this whole time.
Again, see previous comments it’s not about “slippery slope” or “what ifs”, it’s about simple equal protection. You and your kind can argue that those other alternative groups don’t count unless there is a big movement to get the same rights for them, but you’d be an idiot.
So what is your argument here? That the only legitimate way to be is a “couple” not just a man/woman but a man/man and a woman/woman? Sounds like it:
Regarding the section of your quote I put in bold… Says who!? YOU?! You decide that the desire to have multiple partners isn’t natural? Based on what? Again, there is no evidence that anyone is born gay, you presented the common retarded argument earlier that they wouldn’t choose to be gay because of societal stigmas, but any 5 year old knows that this is an empty and stupid argument.
I’m buzzing now and don’t even know what to say to you because you haven’t even attempted to argue against any real points here. You’re clearly just someone who has chosen to be gay and can’t stand the fact that there are logical people who see how ridiculous the idea is. I guess I’ll just repeat:
And again say – produce the gay gene, or produce children through gay sex, and come back and talk.
And again, the polygamy isn’t a slippery slope, it’s an equal rights issue. I don’t agree with it either, but if you agree that gays deserve the same rights as straight couples, then you have no case against polygamy. Fact. Unless you want to explain to me where nature or God, or whatever it is you believe in dictated “couples” were allowed, regardless of whether it’s two men, two women, or one of each… but just couples and nothing else.
RightWinged on December 15, 2006 at 12:31 AM
Well, on polygamy…I cant see how a guy could handle more than one wife…srsly.
EnochCain on December 15, 2006 at 12:32 AM
And again, “heterosexuality” isn’t a characteristic, unless you’re assuming homosexuality is a natural alternative, therefore it wouldn’t be reflected in a gene. You’re so blinded by your own mission that you can’t even see how dishonest and/or idiotic you are.
RightWinged on December 15, 2006 at 12:34 AM
Psychological journals have been written on the subject of why people are gay. It has everything to do with how they were raised as children. Men who were raised by fathers who were neglectful or failed to give appropriate approval to their sons choose (yes, I said choose) to be gay in part because of their psychological need to please other men – a longing for a male/male relationship (however distorted) they never had growing up. I’m not going to lay blame at them because they had a failed relationship with their father, but I will shout from the rooftops that it has nothing to do with genes – the very genes that make us male or female in the first place. Rightwinged is absolutely correct in the assertion that the most natural relationship is male/female, not male/male or female/female. It doesn’t make sense for a nation or state to create special or additional (rights/laws/privileges) for people who grew up in a dysfunctional environment – which (according to many scientific journals) is the driver of why people choose to become homosexual or exhibit homosexual tendencies. At the risk of completely offending you at this point, we’re not talking about some naturally developing occurrence (genes). This is about a dysfunctional problem within family structures.
thedecider on December 15, 2006 at 12:42 AM
^seems like a trip back to the 60′s when homosexuality was classified as a disorder…
crr6 on December 15, 2006 at 12:56 AM
Funny, you managed to deduce this a couple weeks ago when we were talking about another subject.
Funny how you accuse me of doing the same thing you’re doing. You claim that gay people choose to be gay without any evidence that this is true. Ask any gay person (this may be hard for you, but try greeting them without the words “hello you filthy sodomite”) whether they chose to be gay or if it was a natural thing.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/genetics/
I’m gay? I should tell my girlfriend; she’d want to know.
You were already horribly wrong about genes, chromosomes, and DNA; I explained it to you and you still want to ignore it.
Yes, yes it is. You seem to think that that being gay is the same as being a polygamist, I think it’s biological. When you argue my point I respond, when I argue my point you respond by calling me a troll and claiming that my argument is “retarded.”
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html
How is heterosexuality not a characteristic just like homosexuality? Preferences like that are reflected in your DNA strands, susceptibility to cancer is reflected in your DNA strands, a tumor isn’t shown in your genes, a wart on your hand isn’t shown in your genes. Understand? I don’t think you should talk about genes until you’ve taken and understood a basic Biology course.
I don’t even need to respond this time for you to call me dishonest and idiotic. Talk about trolls.
It’s useless talking to you.
Nonfactor on December 15, 2006 at 1:01 AM
Proof! It’s time for proof!
thedecider on December 15, 2006 at 1:04 AM
Here is a direct quote from the very article you linked:
Uncertain! You are basing a debate on an “uncertain” doctrine.
thedecider on December 15, 2006 at 1:08 AM
Right on crr6! A disorder, indeed.
thedecider on December 15, 2006 at 1:14 AM
Most all behavioral scientific debate is about nature-nurture. This one is no different. The only problem is that the consequences of choosing nurture mean a loving couple can’t visit each other if one of them gets injured. What’s the problem with allowing that to happen?
Nonfactor on December 15, 2006 at 1:14 AM
I thought I made it clear I was stating my opinion. It is my opinion that there is a gay gene and based on what every single gay person I’ve talked to has said, it is a natural thing. You know who else is basing their beliefs on something that is “uncertain”? Every single person debating this subject.
Nonfactor on December 15, 2006 at 1:16 AM
Nonfactor, don’t misunderstand me. I have absolutely no problem with gay people caring for one another. I have no problem with gay people choosing to live with each other in their interpretation of a relationship – whatever that means, and whatever makes them happy – I will not begrudge them of that. I do, however, have a problem with making special laws and privileges for ANY group of people based on a lifestyle choice. I understand that you believe this is a natural choice. I (and a majority of others) disagree.
thedecider on December 15, 2006 at 1:20 AM
Well, they would, wouldn’t they? If one is going to choose that kind of lifestyle then they must be prepared to agree with and defend it. My argument wants facts and I don’t see any. I did not know that you were only giving your opinion as your argument seemed to be more than that.
thedecider on December 15, 2006 at 1:24 AM
And therein lays the problem. As long as you think it’s a choice, and as long as I think it isn’t there’ll always be debate, and even if it’s proven that it is a choice or proven that it isn’t I’m sure there’ll still be people like us debating it.
All that needs to be said is “gay couples are afforded the same rights as married couples.”
Nonfactor on December 15, 2006 at 1:28 AM
dissent is fine with me, although this isn’t dissent. people who support this need to go live in other countries that do support gay marriage, because the majority of americans are in fact against gay marriage & believe that marriage is defined as 1 man & 1 woman & has been for quite some time, because the majority of the American people will not let this happen. are you sure you’re not really a liberal there Slublog, because only liberals support amnesty & gay marriage.
Starblazer on December 15, 2006 at 1:29 AM
“MARRIAGE IS NOT A RIGHT, IT’S A PRIVILEGE.”
Actually, the above is not true. Marriage between people of the opposite sex is considered a “natural right,” one that is not contingent upon statute or law for its existence. The courts and the legislatures have recognized the existence of natural rights in a number of areas: “the right of self defense,” is one such natural right. “The right to have and raise children” is another such.
The “right” of gay marriage is a “discovered right” by leftwing judges who read into the state and US Constitution their ideology, not what is actually said or what their drafters intended.
The part that does not seem to be addressed by anybody so far is how to insure that the “civil union” is not abused or used fraudulently. Specifically, marriage is EXPENSIVE — both to get into and then later to get out of. There is a body of law and court decisions that deal with maintenance (what used to be called “alimoney”), child support, property distribution, visitation, educational support and so on. Millions of dollars are spent each year over such controversies.
There is little (if any) body of law, beyond “palimoney” law suits to cover “civil unions” at this time.
So what happens when these “families” break up? What happens to the legal precedents established by “palimoney” in a civil union environment.
Then there is the assignment of benefits, “family plans,” tax deductions, community property, wills and testiments. ALL will be affected by “civil unions” and not in the way that those agitating for them expect.
Besides the issues of “family plan” insurance, there is a risk of insurance fraud that does not exist under couples who are married.
There are tax law considerations. The Federal Tax code will NOT recognize “civil unions” as legal. This effects inheritance taxes for large estates, as well as the simple “joint deduction.” The issue of who takes the children as tax deductions (if there are any) is not settled by NJ’s civil union laws.
It is glib and easy to say you’re for “civil unions” if you do not understand the there is a body of law that is aimed specifically at marrige between hetrosexual couples and not same sex couples.
What New Jersey did (at the point of a gun in effect) was kick the can down the road. Because you simply can’t develop the equivalent body of law by legislative fiat. The entire “marriage code” would have to be rewritten AS WELL as every civil divorce case for the last 215 (or so) years.
I’m not a lawyer (I’m married to one who practices family law) and she tells me that issues that have been well settled for decades will be re-fought under doctrine of “civil unions” because the attorneys in question will each claim that previous doctrine or law DOES NOT APPLY if the parties involved are members of the same sex. That’s because of the ambiguity involved here.
Toss in children, and the issue gets even messier.
The NJ Legislature did itself, the people of New Jersey, and gay couples no favors.
georgej on December 15, 2006 at 1:29 AM
Therein is the point at which you and I will firmly disagree.
thedecider on December 15, 2006 at 1:32 AM
Because if this were to happen…society would end? Seriously, why don’t you think it’s okay to give gay couples the same rights as married ones? (no slippery slope fallacy)
Nonfactor on December 15, 2006 at 1:35 AM
Speaking as a gay Republican, it’s good to see so many here see nothing wrong with civil unions. Liberals love to spread the stereotype that conservatives are automatically “anti-gay”. One look here would put that to rest…
Seeking civil unions has nothing to do with wanting “special rights”…simply “equal rights”…
And to those who see it as some sort of “stepping stone” to polygamy or someone who wants to marry their dog…I send them a “Bronx Cheer” and this: Get real.
JetBoy on December 15, 2006 at 1:52 AM
Validation!
Nonfactor on December 15, 2006 at 1:55 AM
The whole nature/nurture thing is a red herring. Whether or not homosexuality is “natural” should have no bearing on whether or not gay civil unions are allowed. In fact when people bring up the word “natural” I’m usually at a complete loss as to what they mean. Whether or not there are genetic predispositions towards homosexuality, it clearly isn’t a choice in the sense of choosing your socks. A gay person cannot just switch off their attraction to the same sex. Whether this is because of their genes or because of hormones in the womb or because of early socialization is an open question, but it should be irrelevant for this debate.
It comes down, in my mind, to a cost/benefit analysis. Legalizing civil unions will allow many people in this country to live with the people they love without having to forsake privileges that heterosexual couples take for granted. The costs seem to be minimal (besides the “ick factor” that some people need to get over). The Netherlands and Belgium have allowed same-sex marriage for a few years, and there is no solid evidence of any social or economic cost linked to this decision.
I do not think polygamy/polyandry should be legal because the costs in that case are not negligible. If it is allowed, then I believe there will be far more cases of polygamy than polyandry, because there are religions that endorse polygamy. Assuming an equal number of men and women in the population, this leads to an excess of unmarried young men. This phenomenon does (arguably) lead to unwelcome social costs. In situations where women are scarce (such as China, thanks to the One Child policy and sex-selective abortion), crime rates tend to be higher and underground prostitution networks spring up that are fairly exploitative. The empirical data on this is hazy, but it can plausibly be attributed to disaffected young men unable to find spouses. Also, empirically speaking, most polygamous marriages are extremely inegalitarian, with the women being treated essentially as chattel. Finally, polygamy would involve serious issues about how to treat inheritances.
These costs, I think, justify a ban on polygamy. However, similar social costs do not exist for homosexual marriage (or civil union), and the benefit to gay people is huge. So I see no reason to stand in their way.
Jazzman on December 15, 2006 at 1:58 AM
And Thanks!, Nonfactor, and thedecider too…for quite a debate there!
Note to thedecider: Gay civil unions in no way threaten traditional marriage. If John and Steve’s union is legally recognized, how does that affect John and Mary’s marriage?
And you can debate the cause and effect of homosexuality all day…but if it’s a choice, WHY would anyone choose it? Makes no sense…
JetBoy on December 15, 2006 at 2:04 AM
Many reasons. First, let’s start with children. Some gay couples either have, or choose to obtain, children. What happens to those kids when the gay couple separates? There is sufficient proof that gay unions do not last as long (or are as consistent and nurturing) as heterosexual unions (for whatever reason – I won’t even bother to go into that debate here). How do those children end up when being interjected into the lifestyle their “parents” chose? This cannot be a happy or ideal situation for them. The ideal situation (even if their parents separate) is that they come from a natural environment (male/female) without the stigma of having “gay” parents. Again, I will go back to my original argument that being gay is a choice – not a natural occurence, and is not openly accepted by a majority of society. No matter how you try to argue the point, most people (the largest majority) do not accept the gay lifestyle, and these kids will have to live with the consequence and ridicule of that. Second, in order to accomodate “civil unions” or “gay marriage” current laws do not support separation of assets or accomodate the distribution of gains acquired during the union. This isn’t as simple as allowing marriages or unions. Finally, let’s go ahead and address the elephant in the room: being gay or lesbian is not an ideal choice. It is, frankly, a dysfunction until someone (anyone) can prove otherwise. I haven’t seen a single link or comment on this thread to convince me otherwise. Why would (or should) a nation or state make laws to accomodate a lifestyle choice that is anathema to normal society? I would like to see an answer to that question.
thedecider on December 15, 2006 at 2:06 AM
Well I could really care less either way about civil unions but as far as polygamy never being legal…I would think at one time people said the same about civil unions.
EnochCain on December 15, 2006 at 2:14 AM
Same thing that happens to children when a straight couple separates.
I’d like to see some evidence, but don’t expect any. I’m getting that your main problem stems from gay adoption in this first section, not gay marriage.
Prove to me it’s a dysfunction, prove to me it’s a choice, prove to me that a child wouldn’t be happy being raised by gay parents. Oh, I forgot, you “won’t even bother to go into that.”
And how exactly is being gay/allowing gay couples to have the rights of married couples “anathema to normal society”? And what should that matter? Blacks were anathema to the South in the 1800′s (and some could argue that they still are in some places). Should we ban blacks from the South? Oh, when I put it in those terms your idea seems a bit ludicrous. That’s because it is.
Nonfactor on December 15, 2006 at 2:21 AM
I would like to see a source for this claim. And the heterosexual unions you describe (the ones that don’t last long), are they legally recognized unions? Does legal recognition make a difference?
There used to be a time when this was true of kids from inter-racial marriages. Thankfully, that kind of prejudice has reduced considerably. The appropriate solution isn’t to do away with gay marriage completely, but to make an effort to ensure that the kids aren’t stigmatized. It worked (to a large extent) for inter-racial marriage, it could work for gay marriage as well.
I guess I don’t see the problem here. Why is distribution of assets going to be any more of a problem for gay marriages than for straight marriages? I’m guessing if gay marriage is legalized than all current marriage law applies to gay marriages as well. Maybe I’m not understanding your objection here.
Why is it a dysfunction until proved otherwise? You’re right that it isn’t normal, in the sense that it is statistically rare, but this doesn’t seem sufficient reason to declare it somehow undesirable or immoral. It seems the burden of proof should be on the people who claim it is a dysfunction, not those who don’t. If you’re calling someone’s behavior abhorrent or dysfunctional, I would argue that you need to provide evidence that it is somehow harmful to the individual or his/her community. Otherwise, we give them the benefit of the doubt. But if you demand proof that it isn’t a dysfunction, is it sufficient that the American Psychological Association took homosexuality off its list of psychological dysfunctions a long time ago. After all, you were the one who was referencing psychology earlier. The consensus in the psychological community, as far as I am aware, is that there is nothing inherently unhealthy or harmful about homosexuality. Here is the APA’s page on homosexuality: http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html
Jazzman on December 15, 2006 at 2:26 AM
All I can add to this debate is…
1) I did not choose to be gay. It’s not a “lifestyle”, it’s a life.
2) There’s no magic crystal ball (or any evidence, for that matter) that can accurately predict how a child from any household…gay, straight, white, black, rich, poor, etc…will grow up.
3) Gay civil unions should in no way affect anyone else’s “quality of life”. If you think it does, then you need to “get a life”…
Time for sleepy…Peace, y’all
JetBoy on December 15, 2006 at 2:33 AM
This is, without question, the most ridiculously irrelevant “point” you’ve made. Up to now, you and I were having (what I thought was) an intelligent debate. Throwing the “black” issue into this discussion is the moment at which you have run completely out of any point whatsoever. As for proof of your points, what have you provided? I thought this was your “opinion” as you pointed out earlier. Now the debate is held to a different standard as you have run out of new arguments – as noted by tossing in the “racial” element. Good night Nonfactor. Consider changing your name to Non-issue after this one.
thedecider on December 15, 2006 at 2:35 AM
I asked how it was anathema to society and what the mattered in the gay marriage debate. I likened it to how blacks were anathema to southern society and how that shouldn’t/didn’t matter when giving blacks rights.
Nonfactor on December 15, 2006 at 2:42 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »