Ruling: Gay couples should have the same rights as hetrosexul couples

1356789

Comments

  • hippiemom
    hippiemom Posts: 3,326
    robbie wrote:
    nice try new jersey, but not really...... this legislation goves gay couples seperate but equal rights........ where have i heard that before????????
    Abu is right, it's progress. Black people didn't achieve equality under the law overnight either. I'm glad that we're at least headed in the right direction.
    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
  • Hope&Anger
    Hope&Anger Posts: 260
    hippiemom wrote:
    Abu is right, it's progress. Black people didn't achieve equality under the law overnight either. I'm glad that we're at least headed in the right direction.
    Amen to that.

    Does anyone think there's going to be a political storm about this as we head into the elections? Somehow I don't think so. First, I don't think the religious right is as mobilized as they've been in the past. (All my fundamentalist Christian in-laws are either staying home on election day or voting for Democrats.)

    Second, gays have been getting married in Mass. for almost two years now, and the fabric of society hasn't fallen apart, not even a little bit. Perhaps that experience is demonstrating that this really isn't something to be feared.
    "Things will just get better and better even though it
    doesn't feel that way right now. That's the hopeful
    idea . . . Hope didn't get much applause . . .
    Hope! Hope is the underdog!"

    -- EV, Live at the Showbox
  • Puck78
    Puck78 Posts: 737
    know1 wrote:
    What if the person I'm in love with won't marry me? Marriage is not a right.
    ahahah, i thought you were serious, instead you're just pathetic...
    www.amnesty.org
    www.amnesty.org.uk
  • darkcrow
    darkcrow Posts: 1,102
    reborncareerist wrote:
    Christianity isn't the only religion that sanctions bigotry toward homosexuals. In fact, a few denominations allow homosexual pastors, which is downright progressive.

    sorry i should have clarified what i meant... What I meant to say was that when the govt was trying to pass the civil partnerships bill it was mainly crazy christians who were saying the fabric of society would fall apart etc. Also it was mainly crazy christiains who said we should not have civil partnerships as this is officially the home of anglicanism and this is a christian country.

    ps. one of my senior lecturers at my university was one of the first men to have a civil partnership. so far our university has not fallen into hell
    DOWNLOAD THE LATEST ISSUE OF The Last Reel: http://www.mediafire.com/?jdsqazrjzdt
    http://www.myspace.com/thelastreel http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=19604327965
  • Abuskedti
    Abuskedti Posts: 1,917
    know1 wrote:
    Again, you jump to conclusions far too quickly my friend. I think the tunnelvision comment could possibly be reserved for the mirror. I have nothing against homosexuals and their unions. I have big problems with their arguments for legal marriage...and I also have big problems with the other sides arguments against legal marriage. I'm not so transparent or shallow as you assume.

    Besides... How long have you been civil unioned? and this is our third civil union anniversary.. just don't have the same ring to them.. its just not fair.
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    Abuskedti wrote:
    I see.. so this is more about the intricacies of the english language. You prefer a strict narrow sort of tunnelish use of the word marriage - it can be the same as marriage - cept if its two boys or two girls its called civil union and if its boy girl or girl boy its marriage?

    Wrong again, batman. I don't care what they call it. I just think their arguments and those of the other side are bogus.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    decides2dream wrote:
    *applauds*

    i look forward to the day that it is legal in all 50 states, and no one gives it a second thought, as well it should be. how two other people, male/female, male/male, female/female...choose to live their lives is none of my business, and i thoroughly believe they are as deserving of the 'rights' that my husband and i share as a married couple. the legalities of marriage are just that, a legal issue...all else....is your own personal beliefs, and ALL citizens who are legal, consenting adults, should have access to whatever benefits there is to a legal marriage.

    By why does it have to be just two? If I'm a polygamist, aren't I being discriminated against by not being allowed to marry the people that I want to?
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    hippiemom wrote:
    If the person you're in love with won't marry you, it's not the government standing in your way.

    Exactly, that's why it's not a right.

    Essentially, we're talking about a choice here. All arguments about nature v. nurture v. experiences aside (and I believe all are valid), when talking about marriage, homosexual people can choose to marry right now in all 50 states. They just have to marry someone from the opposite sex...the SAME as a heterosexual person. Therefore, they had equal rights.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    Puck78 wrote:
    ahahah, i thought you were serious, instead you're just pathetic...

    How so? Because I'm discussing a side of the argument you don't agree with? How about you add to the discussion instead of making it personal?
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • chopitdown
    chopitdown Posts: 2,222
    know1 wrote:
    By why does it have to be just two? If I'm a polygamist, aren't I being discriminated against by not being allowed to marry the people that I want to?

    especially if you love them both.
    make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    This has to be the silliest political issue in history. And that's saying quite a bit.
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    farfromglorified wrote:
    This has to be the silliest political issue in history. And that's saying quite a bit.

    I totally agree.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • Abuskedti
    Abuskedti Posts: 1,917
    farfromglorified wrote:
    This has to be the silliest political issue in history. And that's saying quite a bit.

    Do you mean Gayist? Yes, some issues are important to some and not to others... I find a suggestion that we should not have taxes far more silly...
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Abuskedti wrote:
    Do you mean Gayist? Yes, some issues are important to some and not to others... I find a suggestion that we should not have taxes far more silly...

    No, I didn't mean Gayist, particularly considering that the issue involves more straight people than gay people.

    I meant silliest....meaning that both sides of this issue are upset about something other than the issue itself.

    Since you don't support optional taxation I guess you must not support gay marriage or arbortion, huh? You must not be a big fan of choice........ ;)
  • Abuskedti
    Abuskedti Posts: 1,917
    farfromglorified wrote:
    No, I didn't mean Gayist, particularly considering that the issue involves more straight people than gay people.

    I meant silliest....meaning that both sides of this issue are upset about something other than the issue itself.

    Since you don't support optional taxation I guess you must not support gay marriage or arbortion, huh? You must not be a big fan of choice........ ;)

    Two out of 3 aint bad.. I do not support gay marriage or abortion.

    but I certainly support choice.

    Choice does allow for both abortion and gay marriage.
  • Abuskedti
    Abuskedti Posts: 1,917
    farfromglorified wrote:
    No, I didn't mean Gayist, particularly considering that the issue involves more straight people than gay people.

    I meant silliest....meaning that both sides of this issue are upset about something other than the issue itself.

    Since you don't support optional taxation I guess you must not support gay marriage or arbortion, huh? You must not be a big fan of choice........ ;)

    as for optional taxation.. that is indeed the silliest notion yet.

    but hey, its your choice to support optional taxation - good luck with that. Its a difficult position to fund.

    You wouldn't have to pay taxes if you lived in a tent in the wilderness of America and lived off the fruits of the land...
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Abuskedti wrote:
    as for optional taxation.. that is indeed the silliest notion yet.

    but hey, its your choice to support optional taxation - good luck with that. Its a difficult position to fund.

    You wouldn't have to pay taxes if you lived in a tent in the wilderness of America and lived off the fruits of the land...

    And gay people could get married if they moved somewhere that allows it. Doesn't make it right for you to force them to do so though.
  • Abuskedti
    Abuskedti Posts: 1,917
    farfromglorified wrote:
    And gay people could get married if they moved somewhere that allows it. Doesn't make it right for you to force them to do so though.

    I agree
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Abuskedti wrote:
    I agree

    Then perhaps maybe you see how forcing people to live by your moral code when it comes to taxes is just as bad as forcing people to live by someone else's moral code when it comes to abortion or gay marriage.
  • Abuskedti
    Abuskedti Posts: 1,917
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Then perhaps maybe you see how forcing people to live by your moral code when it comes to taxes is just as bad as forcing people to live by someone else's moral code when it comes to abortion or gay marriage.

    No.. A large number of Americans agreed as a group to pay taxes for a large number of reasons... and still we allow you to choose not to.. it is your choice to join in our games - otherwise you'd not have to pay. If you didn't use our money.. you wouldn't have to pay any taxes.

    If you don't want to be part of our partnership - there is plenty of wilderness for you to camp and perhaps build a competing group.

Categories