N.J. Gov. Christie Vetoes Gay Marriage Bill as Vowed

Good! He is not going to allow himself to be held hostage by sexual deviants who hi-jacked the civil rights movement to justify their perversity.

 

Here's what GLAAD [Gay & Lesbian media-promotion group] unapologetically-offers as the true hub of the push for "gay civil rights".

 

Is that why women were also arguing for the liberation and equal rights of dogs, whales and cattle?

The reason we don't argue for everything else at the same time is

A: It's impossible to consider EVERYTHING else at the same time
B: All we have to do is show similar situation with the heterosexuals it's allowed with.

For giggles, let's say we do want to consider some special situations, and see if the are similarly situated.

Polygamists: Frankly, I have no problem if they want to marry, but they are not similarly situated. Financial and contractual laws built around marriage do not translate well into a situation where there is more than one partner, so the laws would have to be adapted. Is it "fair" that polygamous marriages can have one working person, and everyone else is then entitled to health care? The right becomes disproportional. How do other custodial matters work, when you have a multitude of parents and children?

Incest: Gays don't produce offspring that share both of their genetics. Incest also is a risky form of non-concentual sex - where, say, the father gives consent on behalf of his child, giving the child no power or say. It's a problem when your family has the ability to consent for you into incest, particularly at a younger age.

Neither situation is similarly situated to homosexuals in general, who are more similarly situated to heterosexuals who are allowed to marry in both cases.

In any event, again, no it is not our responsibility to argue for or against whales marrying crabs, people marrying rocks, aliens marrying crawfish and any other of the infinite possibilities of marriage in order to argue for our own rights. The burden is unnecessary when all we have to do is show similar situation to heterosexuals who can marry.

 

I Love it ... just make that Tent Smaller...

 

Oh...lol...OK, on the one hand it's "impossible to consider EVERYTHING else at the same time> right there you have admitted the slippery slope is real..

[while I'm sure reserving the adaptibility to come back later and claim that isn't what you meant]


and

You have a lot more to so than show a simliar situation to heterosexuals. You have to, as Governor Christie said, convince the voting public that such a monumetal change to what society upholds as "the normal sexual relationship between adults that we hold out to youth to aspire to" [marraige] is what everyone wants for ourselves, since we all will inherit the social-implications of setting a new more for future generations to aspire to.

Also, if you're trying to circumvent the Will of the People to whom this gigantic change will apply, you will have to convince SCOTUS that the 14th has to have a new category to cover as to "privelege and immunities". That would be a new precedent for creating a protected "class" for a very narrow set of sexual behaviors that some people erroneously have decided to identify themselves as intrinsic to their personal character.

Things like unisex public bathrooms, as odd and as irrelevent as that topic may sound, will come up. If we regulate behaviors and deny priveleges to certain genders in certain situations, then if that is turned on its head, so shall all regulations be susceptible.

One last thing I'd like to return to is your original claim that you are disdaining polygamists because "it's impossible for you to anticipate and join up with every situation". Polygamists are trying right now for marraige equality. The gays are all about gaining momentum for this undertaking. Saying you would turn your back on a known segment of the population who would throw in their efforts at your side is...a little unbelievable... Either you want support for "equal civil rights" that you know is out there, or you don't.

Which is it?..lol.. [rhetorical question. Anyone can guess your answer and why it is the way it is.]

 

I've made this point myself repeatedly so I don't see how this:

has any bearing on the truth?

Polygamists would need a complete reworking of family law, not access to the existing marriage contract.

Would I care if they were to lobby for this?

No I wouldn't. If a guy wants ten wives (or husbands or mix and match) I couldn't care less but the legal ramifications would need to be researched and assessed in advance.

There is no similarity of situation as there is with same gender couples.

 

You guys are never gonna get through to Silly.

With gay marriage and nuclear power, you can't really expect Silly to be reasonable.

 

Then come out publicly side by side with polygamists, or keep your ruse in the ruse-box where it belongs..

ie: put your mouth where your money is..

Nope, family law already takes into account, parents, stepparents, aunts, uncles, grandparents and other guardians when it comes to complex custody cases already underway for decades now in family courts.

So that argument is dead on arrival.

Next.

Gays just don't want to stand shoulder to shoulder with polygamists [coming soon to a civil-rights-for-marraige-by-gay-precedent court-pleading near you] because the main demographic they are tugging along with the Agenda by the heartstrings, often using "gay teen suicides" as a treble hook, are heterosexual housewives and other young women. You tell them that gay marraige comes hand in hand with a younger, prettier woman sharing the master bedroom with hubby and you'll watch an artic chill descend upon the momentum for support for "gay rights". In a nanosecond.

THAT is the reason gays are petrified, absolutely mortified of the idea of standing shoulder to shoulder with polygamists, who will naturally come in right on the heels of their new precedent, should they get it.

Yeah, we know all about the little gay/polygamy secret..lol..

 

Er, I just did. I don't care if polygamists want access to a marriage contract.

Just did. If polygamists want to lobby to have their situation re-recognized I will be more than happy to lend an opinion in the same way I have for gays who have convinced me they are similarly situated to most heterosexuals (those that can procreate naturally with each other) and IDENTICALLY SITUATED with the remainder (those that cannot).

Nope they may be considered but they don't have automatic access to certain benefits or automatic requirement of certain responsibilities. If a man has ten wives all of whom have three kids, is every mother the mother of the others' children? If he has nine wives and one husband is his husband the father of the children of the nine mothers?

Obviously not.

You didn't make it past the first hurdle so there is no "next".

Well I'm not gay but I would stand shoulder to shoulder with polygamists if I thought their rights were being trampled on as plainly and clearly as gays' are.

Is there another word for clap-trap?

You're projecting in fabulous 1080p High Definition again. I very much doubt that a whole group of people give much thought to the non-similar situation of another whole group of people.

If ANYBODY wants to start a non-gay related thread on how polygamous marriage could be worked into civil contract law, I'd be more than happy to make an assessment and contribution.

Exactly how many voices in your head are telling you this?

 

You know conservatives can't stand the will of the constitution.

 

ROFL - watching yall dance around is amusing I have to give you that.

Why would proponents of ssm be asking anything having to do with multiple marriages - they are fighting for their rights first.

If you are using this as justification then you would not have felt women should have been given any rights because the core of the moment was for women, they were not pushing for black men to have rights, they were not pushing for animals to be treated humanely, they were not pushing for interracial marriage.

The same argument can be made for black rights - they were not pushing for Asian rights not Indian rights... Your point is inane and shows your lack of thought on the subject.

As for pedophiles, animals, houses, fire hydrants.... if you cannot understand these cannot consent then you should go seek professional help as I do not think anyone here can make you understand, or care. Very few people want children to be abused in the way your "slippery slope" argument suggests will eventually happen. No one is being harmed in a ssm besides the bigots, and honestly I am fine with that.

Marriage should be a religious institution between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN and GOD. Unfortunatly this has been altered over the years and is subject to being equally applied as there are no reasons why ssm should be denied in a court of law (Marriage is a legal term). You continue with your silly arguments though.

 

is it right to ban polygamy is their something about polygamy that’s harmful and not fair to people?

 

depends is the sexual preference involving someone or thing other than a mature human who can freely decide to consent to it or not?

 

What’s wrong with being uncommon and different sexily by being homosexual?

And if your treated unfairly by being homosexual then you have not hijacked a civil rights movement you legitimately have your own civil rights cause to pursue

 

Either we believe in the Constitution, or we don't.

I believe that everyone is equal under the law; therefore one set of couples should not be denied the harmony, love, responsibility of marriage because of their sexual preferences, while the other set of couples receives the right automatically.

This phenomenon should not become involved in the hysterical "what if's" that fear filled heterosexuals enjoy wallowing in, but ask why does equality evade gays and lesbians purely because of their sexual preferences? Is it hysterical fear, hatred, or distrust in the unknown.

But let us ask ourselves: How will society change because two gays or two lesbians get married, adopt or bear children, bring them up as solid citizens, and have their children eventually marry the people they love?

They will act just as heterosexuals act, be happy, become unhappy and get divorced, become parents, work and pay their taxes, and live a productive and happy life with the one they love....which is exactly what hetersexuals do. Life will be the same, nothing will change in the heteros' lives.

What huge ogres are built up in the minds of overly fearful. overly religious, radically political heteros when a gay couple desires to be married? Or when lesbians want to marry and live their lives together? Does this happen when a hetero couple desires marriage? No...

Society has produced a colony of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" instead of looking at our Constitution that promises equality for everyone. Because of actions like that of Gov. Christie, it is time for the Supreme Court to tell the states that marriage for gays and for lesbians is deemed legal, that the States will perform these marriages
forthwith, and that any repercussions against gays or lsbians will be treated as hate crimes.

 

We don't even need to speculate that you are correct.

I live in NY --- nothing has changed.

Except that our marriage industry is booming (since our residency requirement for marriage is minimal).

 

Define "unfairly". Include polygamists and sibling pairs in your reply.

 

its unfair that your controlling what these people want to do based on dislike for who they are and what they do

With incest and polygamy marriage seems to be banned over a mix of that and concerns that those relationships ships would not be fair to those involved or to society

if that can be shown to not be the case it would also be unfair to ban those weddings based on dislike alone

 

Why? You sound like a bigot against polygamists and sibling pairs. Do they not love and have sex with each other too, just like gays?

And who says I dislike gays? I merely don't want to promote what they do to mainstream society, via marraige, as a taboo-free new social more for children to look up to. I prefer a disincentive to enticement for experimenting youth to not come down with HIV, among other reasons... And I grow very tired of their reverse-demonizing with ANYONE for ANY REASON who has a different opinion other than "let's all close our eyes and swap conservative mainstream values/behaviors for the gay ones".

I know a lot of other people who feel the same way. Spoiler alert: most of them aren't religious at all; they just possess common sense.

 

o and not letting people marry because your afraid that will lead to other marriages you detest even more is also unfair

 

You were the one just saying polygamy and sibling pairs shouldn't get married. Not me.

Go ahead. Link arms with polygamists and sibling pairs right now. March to the Supreme Court arm in arm with them. The more the merrier, right? The more, the more punch your cause will have, right?

Go ahead. Take out a 3 minute ad on primetime promoting gay marraige, polygamy marraige and sibling marraige. Let's be fair to all, or realize that marraige discriminates against more than just people who call themselves gays or lesbians..

 

With incest and polygamy marriage seems to be banned over a mix of that and concerns that those relationships ships would not be fair to those involved or to society

if that can be shown to not be the case it would also be unfair to ban those weddings based on dislike alone.

its unfair for you to demonize homosexuals by presenting them as a sinister collective bent on adding heterosexuals into their ranks


loving the same gender sexually when that’s how you are and getting married should not be taboo because you don’t like it and it should not be enticing unless your gay or bisexual and want to get hitched

being homosexual doesn’t come with a set of values and a life style built in just like with us

 

can you not read?

With incest and polygamy marriage seems to be banned over a mix of that and concerns that those relationships ships would not be fair to those involved or to society

if that can be shown to not be the case it would also be unfair to ban those weddings based on dislike alone

 

Could you mention the reasons why you don’t think incestuous couples or groups of men and women in any ratio of gender should not marry?

Homosexual marriage seems like a much more simple issue so it was easy for me to decide how i feel about it iv never heard anything that makes me think homosexuals should not marry

iv herd more troubling things about group marriage and incest

 

So, the gays should be the ones deciding this issue? Since they are the only one this affects.