Honestly, I don't see the big deal if gays can marry. I mean take religion out of the equation and I don't see a reason to keep them from marrying. And don't give that sanctity of marriage bs.. divorce rates are, what, 40% or more, so heterosexuals sure don't care about sanctity.
Amen...no argument on this issue drives me more crazy than the "sanctity of marriage" argument.
Okay, let's see how many people in this thread will view your solution as fair, realistic, and plausible.
Perhaps others would like to share an opinion.
'00 Detroit; '03 Detroit I MSG II Boston III; '04 Toledo Grand Rapids; '05 Thunder Bay Kitchener London; '06 Arnhem Barcelona Marseille Prague Berlin; '07 Chorzow London Duesseldorf Copenhagen Nijmegen Lollapalooza; '08 EV LA II EV SD I DC MSG I/II EV Montreal I/II EV Toronto I/II EV Chicago I/II; '09 EV Memphis EV Atlanta I/II Berlin Manchester London Sydney Brisbane Auckland Christchurch; '10 Noblesville Cleveland Dublin Belfast Berlin; '11 EV Detroit EV St. Louis EV Minneapolis PJ20 I/II Winnipeg '12 Berlin I/II Stockholm Oslo '13 London Dallas '14 Berlin Stockholm Oslo Detroit
This is honestly a case of activist liberal judges trying to impose their view on the majority of the people of new jersey, most of whom are against gay unions.
Most of New Jerseyians are against same sex marriages? Maybe you should look up some facts before inserting your foot in your mouth. Most recent polls show that New Jerseyians support gay marriage 53% - 41%. Stop repeating RNC talking points, you are starting to sound like pychosinlove.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Most of New Jerseyians are against same sex marriages? Maybe you should look up some facts before inserting your foot in your mouth. Most recent polls show that New Jerseyians support gay marriage 53% - 41%. Stop repeating RNC talking points, you are starting to sound like pychosinlove.
Do you think same sex marriage unions should be decided on a state by state level?
I don't think that government on any level should decide if it's ok or not for two consenting adults to marry.
I believe it should be up to the states to decide. If the peopel of Nj want gay marriage than let them have it. AND if the people of Nj want to outlaw abortion they should allow that to go into law also
I believe it should be up to the states to decide. If the peopel of Nj want gay marriage than let them have it. AND if the people of Nj want to outlaw abortion they should allow that to go into law also
If the government has to be involved, then yes it should be a state by state decision. That is exactly what is happening in NJ. The state courts have decided that it is unconstitutional for the state of New Jersey to refuse marriage rights to these people and have given the state legislature 180 days to remedy this as they see fit. Also as I already stated the people of New Jersey are in support of same sex unions/marriages.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
I believe it should be up to the states to decide. If the peopel of Nj want gay marriage than let them have it. AND if the people of Nj want to outlaw abortion they should allow that to go into law also
what if they move to another state later? under the full faith and credit clause, the other states should have to recognize that marriage as valid. thus, it can't be decided on a state-by-state basis cos we'd have folks like you throwing a conniption fit every time one of them queer couples tried to move from new jersey to alabama.
Another instance where the black vote isnt heard...
The only significant disparity in this overall support for gay marriage is found in the African American community. Whites support gay marriage 56 to 40 percent and nearly 70 percent of Hispanics support the idea. Yet, 53 percent of all African Americans oppose marriage for gay couples. In addition, nearly 7 in 10 New Jersey voters support the Domestic Partnership Bill currently in the NJ Legislature. And finally, nearly 80 percent of those polled said they “personally know someone” who is gay, lesbian or bi-sexual.
Another instance where the black vote isnt heard...
The only significant disparity in this overall support for gay marriage is found in the African American community. Whites support gay marriage 56 to 40 percent and nearly 70 percent of Hispanics support the idea. Yet, 53 percent of all African Americans oppose marriage for gay couples. In addition, nearly 7 in 10 New Jersey voters support the Domestic Partnership Bill currently in the NJ Legislature. And finally, nearly 80 percent of those polled said they “personally know someone” who is gay, lesbian or bi-sexual.
What does the black vote have to do with same sex marriage. If people want to be heard they should get off their asses go vote and stop bitching it.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Another instance where the black vote isnt heard...
The only significant disparity in this overall support for gay marriage is found in the African American community. Whites support gay marriage 56 to 40 percent and nearly 70 percent of Hispanics support the idea. Yet, 53 percent of all African Americans oppose marriage for gay couples. In addition, nearly 7 in 10 New Jersey voters support the Domestic Partnership Bill currently in the NJ Legislature. And finally, nearly 80 percent of those polled said they “personally know someone” who is gay, lesbian or bi-sexual.
funny how when the black vote is being shut out of florida and ohio to elect your guy for president, you dont care. but when the black vote helps your moral agenda, suddenly it's a travesty that they're being disenfranchised...
funny how when the black vote is being shut out of florida and ohio to elect your guy for president, you dont care. but when the black vote helps your moral agenda, suddenly it's a travesty that they're being disenfranchised...
Now that's a damn, fine point!
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Honestly, I don't see the big deal if gays can marry. I mean take religion out of the equation and I don't see a reason to keep them from marrying. And don't give that sanctity of marriage bs.. divorce rates are, what, 40% or more, so heterosexuals sure don't care about sanctity.
i think the fact of the matter is that the majority of Americans are opposed to gay marriage be they religious or otherwise.
Furthermore, i think another question that begs to be answered is WHY is the divirce rate so high? You're right many heterosexuals no longer respect the sanctity of marriage. Its a huge problem. How will gay marriage help that? Do you really think Homosexual marriages would have a higher success rate? i personally think it will only further erode the respect people have for marriage. A question i like to ask, but have never gotten a straight answer on is, If marriage is so insignificant and old fashioned, why do gays want it so badly to begin with!
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
i think the fact of the matter is that the majority of Americans are opposed to gay marriage be they religious or otherwise.
Furthermore, i think another question that begs to be answered is WHY is the divirce rate so high? You're right many heterosexuals no longer respect the sanctity of marriage. Its a huge problem. How will gay marriage help that? Do you really think Homosexual marriages would have a higher success rate? i personally think it will only further erode the respect people have for marriage. A question i like to ask, but have never gotten a straight answer on is, If marriage is so insignificant and old fashioned, why do gays want it so badly to begin with!
I think Nickrand answered that question a couple of pages back.
Approximately 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits. Among them are the rights to...
- Joint parenting;
- Joint adoption;
- Joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
- Status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
- Joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
- Dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
- Immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
- Inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
- Joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
- Inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
- Benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
- Spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
- Veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
- Joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
- Wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
- Bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
- Decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
- Crime victims' recovery benefits;
- Loss of consortium tort benefits;
- Domestic violence protection orders;
- Judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;
Most of these legal and economic benefits are those that cannot be privately arranged or contracted. For example, absent a legal (or civil) marriage, there is no guaranteed joint responsibility to the partner and to third parties (including children) in such areas as child support, debts to creditors, and tax law.
In addition, private employers and institutions often give other economic privileges and other benefits only to married couples. And, of course, when people cannot marry, they are denied all the emotional and social benefits and responsibilities of marriage as well.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
Gay couples should have the same rights as hetrosexul couples
Of course they should.
« One man's glory is another man's hell.
You’re on the outside, never bound by such a spell.
Together in the darkness, alone in the light.
I took it upon me to be yours, Timmy,
I’ll lead your angels and demons at play tonight......»
I think Nickrand answered that question a couple of pages back.
Looks like a pretty extensive list of all the wrong reasons to get married. A bunch of legal crap. If thats all it is, i have to say you don't desreve marriage rights.
Besides it still doesn't clearly answer my question. Why, out of one side of your face insist that marriage is "outdated, old fashioned, and pretty much meaningless" while out of the other side of your face demand marriage? For the reasons listed lin the post you quoted? Fuck that.
Contrary to statements made by some, i contend that protecting the sanctity of marriage is a DAMN GOOD argument.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
Besides it still doesn't clearly answer my question. Why, out of one side of your face insist that marriage is "outdated, old fashioned, and pretty much meaningless" while out of the other side of your face demand marriage? For the reasons listed lin the post you quoted? Fuck that.
Because to some, as revolting as marriage may seem to us, we still don't feel the need to deny others from making that choice for themselves.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Looks like a pretty extensive list of all the wrong reasons to get married. A bunch of legal crap. If thats all it is, i have to say you don't desreve marriage rights.
Besides it still doesn't clearly answer my question. Why, out of one side of your face insist that marriage is "outdated, old fashioned, and pretty much meaningless" while out of the other side of your face demand marriage? For the reasons listed lin the post you quoted? Fuck that.
Contrary to statements made by some, i contend that protecting the sanctity of marriage is a DAMN GOOD argument.
First of all, I don't think anyone is going to rush out and marry the first person they meet on the street just to get these benefits. No one is saying that they alone are the reasons to get married. The fact is that if a hetero couple gets married, they get all these benefits, whether or not that was the reason they married in the first place (which it probably wasn't). A homosexual couple is barred by law from receiving these benefits UNLESS they behave in a way that truly does disrespect the institution of marriage, namely marrying a person that they don't honestly want to be joined to for life. You asked why they wanted to be allowed to marry, and that's why ... they want equal treatment under the law.
I have never said that marriage was "outdated, old fashioned and pretty much meaningless," and I doubt that the people clamoring for the right to marry think that either. On the contrary ... the gay people who are fighting for the right to marry very likely hold it in much higher regard than the hetero couples in the Elvis chapel at the end of a drunken weekend, and no one is talking about shutting those down to protect the sanctity of marriage.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
I have never said that marriage was "outdated, old fashioned and pretty much meaningless," and I doubt that the people clamoring for the right to marry think that either. On the contrary ... the gay people who are fighting for the right to marry very likely hold it in much higher regard than the hetero couples in the Elvis chapel at the end of a drunken weekend, and no one is talking about shutting those down to protect the sanctity of marriage.
YOU may have never made that argument, but many DO. I hear/read it all the time on this board as well as elsewhere. And, as far as shutting down the "Elvis Chapels", i'm all for it. Shut 'em down.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
Looks like a pretty extensive list of all the wrong reasons to get married. A bunch of legal crap. If thats all it is, i have to say you don't desreve marriage rights.
Besides it still doesn't clearly answer my question. Why, out of one side of your face insist that marriage is "outdated, old fashioned, and pretty much meaningless" while out of the other side of your face demand marriage? For the reasons listed lin the post you quoted? Fuck that.
Contrary to statements made by some, i contend that protecting the sanctity of marriage is a DAMN GOOD argument.
Put me on the side of the ledger who thinks the arguments about the sanctity of marriage are pointless and stupid when it comes to deciding whether the state ought to offer married couples benefits. If marriage is sacred, that comes from religion, not from the state. Want to preserve the sanctity of marriage? Go to a church, synagogue, mosque, etc. that observes the rite of marriage in the way you prefer. But "sanctity" should have nothing to do with providing benefits.
Also, put me on the side of eradicating all benefits for marriage. Single People Unite!!! Or if you want to use state benefits to encourage people to form families, then expand the legal meaning of marriage to include lots of relationships outside of heterosexual marriage.
Among heterosexuals, the divorce rate is up; couples "shack up" and have kids; domestic violence never seems to stop; and on and on and on. The only people left who see some "sanctity" in marriage are gays and lesbians. They live in loving, committed relationships; they raise happy healthy families. Yet, you and your "pro-family" friends want to keep them out. You should be applauding them rather than shunning them.
Oh, and by the way, some straight, married people think "marriage is 'outdated, old fashioned, and pretty much meaningless.'" But you wouldn't keep them from getting married.
"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!"
Put me on the side of the ledger who thinks the arguments about the sanctity of marriage are pointless and stupid when it comes to deciding whether the state ought to offer married couples benefits. If marriage is sacred, that comes from religion, not from the state. Want to preserve the sanctity of marriage? Go to a church, synagogue, mosque, etc. that observes the rite of marriage in the way you prefer. But "sanctity" should have nothing to do with providing benefits.
Also, put me on the side of eradicating all benefits for marriage. Single People Unite!!! Or if you want to use state benefits to encourage people to form families, then expand the legal meaning of marriage to include lots of relationships outside of heterosexual marriage.
Among heterosexuals, the divorce rate is up; couples "shack up" and have kids; domestic violence never seems to stop; and on and on and on. The only people left who see some "sanctity" in marriage are gays and lesbians. They live in loving, committed relationships; they raise happy healthy families. Yet, you and your "pro-family" friends want to keep them out. You should be applauding them rather than shunning them.
Oh, and by the way, some straight, married people think "marriage is 'outdated, old fashioned, and pretty much meaningless.'" But you wouldn't keep them from getting married.
This was a great post until you started making crazy generalizations about heterosexual and homosexual relationships.
i'm, personally, not afraid of anything. This isn't even an issue i'm all that concerned with. i'm obviously opposed to gay marriage, but it's not something i'm out picketing, soliciting petition signatures, or even voting about. i'm just offering my thoughts to the discussion. As i've said, there is much more important stuff to concentrate my worries and energies on.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
Oh, and by the way, some straight, married people think "marriage is 'outdated, old fashioned, and pretty much meaningless.'" But you wouldn't keep them from getting married.
Actually, i would.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
Comments
Amen...no argument on this issue drives me more crazy than the "sanctity of marriage" argument.
Perhaps others would like to share an opinion.
Is it really that big of a deal? Why?
It's essentially a tax deal. If it were up to me I'd abolish that whole system and go to the fair tax anyway.
I think I might know where.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Most of New Jerseyians are against same sex marriages? Maybe you should look up some facts before inserting your foot in your mouth. Most recent polls show that New Jerseyians support gay marriage 53% - 41%. Stop repeating RNC talking points, you are starting to sound like pychosinlove.
Do you think same sex marriage unions should be decided on a state by state level?
I don't think that government on any level should decide if it's ok or not for two consenting adults to marry.
I believe it should be up to the states to decide. If the peopel of Nj want gay marriage than let them have it. AND if the people of Nj want to outlaw abortion they should allow that to go into law also
Me either. It's utterly ridiculous and laughable.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
If the government has to be involved, then yes it should be a state by state decision. That is exactly what is happening in NJ. The state courts have decided that it is unconstitutional for the state of New Jersey to refuse marriage rights to these people and have given the state legislature 180 days to remedy this as they see fit. Also as I already stated the people of New Jersey are in support of same sex unions/marriages.
what if they move to another state later? under the full faith and credit clause, the other states should have to recognize that marriage as valid. thus, it can't be decided on a state-by-state basis cos we'd have folks like you throwing a conniption fit every time one of them queer couples tried to move from new jersey to alabama.
The only significant disparity in this overall support for gay marriage is found in the African American community. Whites support gay marriage 56 to 40 percent and nearly 70 percent of Hispanics support the idea. Yet, 53 percent of all African Americans oppose marriage for gay couples. In addition, nearly 7 in 10 New Jersey voters support the Domestic Partnership Bill currently in the NJ Legislature. And finally, nearly 80 percent of those polled said they “personally know someone” who is gay, lesbian or bi-sexual.
What does the black vote have to do with same sex marriage. If people want to be heard they should get off their asses go vote and stop bitching it.
funny how when the black vote is being shut out of florida and ohio to elect your guy for president, you dont care. but when the black vote helps your moral agenda, suddenly it's a travesty that they're being disenfranchised...
Now that's a damn, fine point!
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
i think the fact of the matter is that the majority of Americans are opposed to gay marriage be they religious or otherwise.
Furthermore, i think another question that begs to be answered is WHY is the divirce rate so high? You're right many heterosexuals no longer respect the sanctity of marriage. Its a huge problem. How will gay marriage help that? Do you really think Homosexual marriages would have a higher success rate? i personally think it will only further erode the respect people have for marriage. A question i like to ask, but have never gotten a straight answer on is, If marriage is so insignificant and old fashioned, why do gays want it so badly to begin with!
Of course they should.
You’re on the outside, never bound by such a spell.
Together in the darkness, alone in the light.
I took it upon me to be yours, Timmy,
I’ll lead your angels and demons at play tonight......»
Looks like a pretty extensive list of all the wrong reasons to get married. A bunch of legal crap. If thats all it is, i have to say you don't desreve marriage rights.
Besides it still doesn't clearly answer my question. Why, out of one side of your face insist that marriage is "outdated, old fashioned, and pretty much meaningless" while out of the other side of your face demand marriage? For the reasons listed lin the post you quoted? Fuck that.
Contrary to statements made by some, i contend that protecting the sanctity of marriage is a DAMN GOOD argument.
What specifically are you protecting and what are you protecting it from? What is the "sanctity of marriage"?
Because to some, as revolting as marriage may seem to us, we still don't feel the need to deny others from making that choice for themselves.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I have never said that marriage was "outdated, old fashioned and pretty much meaningless," and I doubt that the people clamoring for the right to marry think that either. On the contrary ... the gay people who are fighting for the right to marry very likely hold it in much higher regard than the hetero couples in the Elvis chapel at the end of a drunken weekend, and no one is talking about shutting those down to protect the sanctity of marriage.
YOU may have never made that argument, but many DO. I hear/read it all the time on this board as well as elsewhere. And, as far as shutting down the "Elvis Chapels", i'm all for it. Shut 'em down.
What are you so afraid of?
Also, put me on the side of eradicating all benefits for marriage. Single People Unite!!! Or if you want to use state benefits to encourage people to form families, then expand the legal meaning of marriage to include lots of relationships outside of heterosexual marriage.
Among heterosexuals, the divorce rate is up; couples "shack up" and have kids; domestic violence never seems to stop; and on and on and on. The only people left who see some "sanctity" in marriage are gays and lesbians. They live in loving, committed relationships; they raise happy healthy families. Yet, you and your "pro-family" friends want to keep them out. You should be applauding them rather than shunning them.
Oh, and by the way, some straight, married people think "marriage is 'outdated, old fashioned, and pretty much meaningless.'" But you wouldn't keep them from getting married.
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
This was a great post until you started making crazy generalizations about heterosexual and homosexual relationships.
i'm, personally, not afraid of anything. This isn't even an issue i'm all that concerned with. i'm obviously opposed to gay marriage, but it's not something i'm out picketing, soliciting petition signatures, or even voting about. i'm just offering my thoughts to the discussion. As i've said, there is much more important stuff to concentrate my worries and energies on.
Actually, i would.