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

You can make a slippery slope about pretty much anything you want... This should not be that shocking of a conclusion. The question is if we really have to consider every possibility imaginable.

It's interesting how marriage was recognized as a "fundamental right", protecting things like interracial marriage - the examples we want to set for our children be (*)(*)(*)(*)ed. But then if the same sex wants to marry, now we got to prove to a vast majority why we should have access to what is apparently a fundamental right.

Nevertheless, it's a fair question. To which I'd say, even allowing gays to marry will not fundamentally change the institution. Heterosexuals can still marry, for the same reasons. Marriage encourages monogamy, giving such benefits to society as producing more stable family units and reducing the spread of STD's. Homosexuals being encouraged to marry can support similar ends, and not with any exclusion to heterosexuals.

The issue of marriage itself can easily be reduced to a question of gender... in fact, I've never heard of a proposal for same-sex marriage that specifically that the participants had to be homosexual in their behaviors.

I actually explained my position on polygamists in my previous post, and you'll note that I did support their right to marry. I jsut noted the legal challenges. i.e. our legal structures are not built with anything but a couple in mind - having multiple partners requires much adaptation of the law, the likes of which are nothing like adaptations required for homosexuals to be involved. How does social security and inheritance work? How does joint custody work? How does health insurance benefits work? Who gets to make the medical decisions? It's a very different and complicated story with polygamy.

 

I'm sure if Women stood side-by-side with cattle, dogs and chickens for equal rights, that would have improved their odds of getting equal rights.

Polygamists can come on our heels if they want and can, i'll even support them in doing so. But if society is not ready to recognize polygamists, then I'm sorry, that's not going to be reason for me to stand back and wait for society to recognize polygamists before I argue for homosexuals. Gaining civil rights is often a step-by-step process, not necessarily a giant leep.

 

It's obvious from your posts, including this one, where you insinuate that homosexual behavior automatically includes exposure to HIV.

I see. So, you're in favor of outlawing marriage for anyone who has a sexual desire that you consider taboo? Why do you get to judge that?

What about people who enjoy various kinks?

Well, considering both gays and straights get HIV through promiscuous sex, not monogamy, regardless of whether the behavior is "gay" or "straight", that should be a great argument for promoting monogamy and therefore marriage to as many people as possible.

The HIV argument is always an illogical one. If we want to prevent the spread of HIV we should be outlawing divorce and promoting everyone to get married to the first person they have sex with, including gays.

Not allowing gays to get married promotes people living in transient, temporary relationships. It is you who is promoting behaviors that lead to the spread of HIV, not me.

How about this: Let's let consenting adults engage in whatever behavior they wish that does not harm anyone who has not given consent.

Why do you hate freedom so much?

Nonsense. Opposition to same-sex marriage always comes down to one of two beliefs: (1) gays are gross, or (2) my religion tells me being gay is wrong.

 

If society was ready to accept gay marriage you wouldn't be 0-33 with direct voting throughout the country.

Funny how your own arguments can be used against you once again.

 

So what?

Should we have waited until society was ready to accept interracial marriage? How about desegregation? How about slavery?

 

Polygamists are humans. So are sibling pairs. So you're belittling certain human [behavioral groups] in preference of gay and lesbian behavioral groups? Isn't that bigotry?

Slavery is in no way equivalent to gay sex. And many blacks are not happy about the comparison. Many blacks are religious even & deeply offended by the comparison. Something to think about when pitching for support.

 

Funny how you ignored the close margin in many of the contests, just to say 0-33. Looking at the % of the population that supports it, and how it's growing, is much more enlightening.

 

Okay, how about criminals and children? aren't they human too? why can't they vote? Why didn't women stand side by side with them?

Why? there are notable differences between them, just like there's notable differences between incestuous couples and polygamists.

 

Polygamists and adult siblings are all adults humans. What you're doing is attempting to separate them from lesbians and gays by saying "what they do in bed is icky".

And if you do that, you have just placed yourself in legal-checkmate. Because that is exactly what you profess to object to in what many heteros say about gays. Therefore, you are playing hyopcrite and bigot towards those that aren't like yourself. You either link arms with all adults currently "unfairly" excluded for marraige or stand accuse of that which you are utilizing to try to milk the sympathies of the Court to turn this precedent-case in your favor. If you are OK [by your silence or refusal to stand by their side right now] with denying polygamists and sibling pairs to join in marraige because their behaviors are objectionable, then by that very yardstick so shall you be denied.

There are so many dishonesties like this on behalf of the gay-lobby that it's hard to know where to start...

 

There's nothing inconsistent about a lobby arguing for one particular interest.

That's what lobbies do. Duh.

 

I wish I could get you to understand what "projection" means because you do it all the time.

You are the moralizer here. You project that your opponents see the world through the same moral parameters as you. Problem is we don't. Both JeffLV and myself have clearly stated numerous times that we have no moral objections to the behaviours of polygamists but the law is not a blunt object, it is honed in the details.

For example let's say that heterosexual marriage exists and a group of gay polygamists want to marry each other "because we are in love and all consent". It would be well within the boundaries of logic and law to say to the gay polygamists "no you are not similarly situated to a heterosexual couple as the contract cannot be equally applied across a group in the same way it can a couple." It has nothing to do with what they do in bed and everything to do with whether or not the marriage contract, in its current form, can be applied across a group. It can't. In the past polygamy was easier because the men basically owned all the women.

As you can see this has no basis in finding their behaviour "objectionable". I fully support same sex marriage so I obviously don't.

As for adult siblings. Again, I don't care if they want to get married the only proviso being that they prove sterility if heterosexual and of child-bearing age just like first cousins. I would also like to see stats on how may of these pairings result from abusive situations and, if that's the case, it should be taken into consideration.

My guess is, even if it was legal, you wouldn't get that many takers.

 

Columbine, just so you know, as a lawyer, what you're saying makes perfect sense.

You are saying you are not opposed to polygamy out of some "objection" to it, you're just saying that legalization of polygamy would require broader changes to our system than legalization of same-sex marriage.

Makes sense.

 

Exactly my point.

 

Only 3.5% of Americans are gay according to a UCLA Study. Why then should such a small percentage dictate what the laws should be? People who do not feel it is necessary for gay marriage to be a law are called vile names...homophobe etc, but it's not a phobia that causes the distaste. It's a natural distaste to something unnatural.

 

They don't, the constitution and legal precedent do.

 

I'm confused. it says in our constitution that homosexuals should marry and that it is illegal to stop them? I missed that part in Civics Class.

 

I support polygamists marrying. The question is the practicality in our system more than anything, not a moral objection or because I think it's "icky".

I might even support incest, although the question of risk to their potential children may be overriding. Also the power of a parent to consent their child into incest is of particular concern. Note, it's even legal in some states to marry incestuously if the couple can establish that they are infertile. Again this is not because I think it's "icky" (although part of me does). But I can overlook my own distastes and look at it for practical matters - if the couple can't reproduce, I may as well butt out. If they can reproduce, there's risk to the children to be considered.

It is indeed possible to push forward your own interestes while ignoring what may be other similar interestes. There's nothing that says we have to wait for polygamists and incestuous couples to gain acceptance and prove their case in order to push our own forward. Choosing not to attach an anchor to our legs is not proof of bigotry, just proof of practicality.

 

the existing law is unjust for the 3.5 percent that’s why and its not just some homosexuals that want gay marriage myself and other heterosexuals feel the same way for your information

it may be naturel distaste but its to something that’s also naturel

the only unnatural thing hear is marriage itself that’s a manmade thing

 

.....

The question of gay marriage belongs with the Supreme Court declaring that each state must marry any gay couple, or lesbian couple forthwith, and supply guidelines for any ensuing 'hate crimes' that are likely to appear.

What seems odd to me is that throughout history there have been gays and lesbians, each not havng the power to reproduce. In spite of this, homosexuality has continued to exist throughout the ages. In other animals, the species would be hindered as to growth, or just die out naturally. Either that, or 1) lesbians decided, for creative purposes, they would consort with a heterosexual to become pregnant, which could never attest for the continued number of homosexuals.
or 2) There is some genetic happening that includes passing this gene along in the first crucial part of gestation. All make it a prebirth phenomenon. I believe a good idea would be to have every new birth DNA'd and recorded, not leaving it up to the doctor or nurse to announce the sex of the child.

 

i hear latest theory is its to to unusual exposure to hormones at certain times in the womb rather then genes

 

No the point is that all individuals have rights that can't be abridged by the will of the masses. This is a good thing. Try to think of some ways that these provisions might in some way also protect you.

 

Blacks were only a little bit more than that percentage of the population when schools and other institutions were desegregated.

Are you against that, too?

 

LOL Close but no cigar. So we should allow gay marriage because the vote was close? hahahahahahha

Face it, you are 0-33 you are not in the majority. Tout every poll you like, when it counts people of this country say no

 

Blacks are a race. Homosexuality is not. For the 122,323rd time homosexuality is not a race or gender or any other proven genetic trait. It is a sexual preference. When did the Constitution say sexual preference is now a civil right?

 

It doesn't. The Constitution only touches on behaviors as a class in "creed". So unless gays are pushing to become an organized religion, they're going to have to ask SCOTUS to create a new category for the Constitution. And actually that means they'll have to ask Congress to do that, in an Amendment. I'm pretty sure that's not going to happen. Amendments are nearly impossible to get through for the most noble of causes. For [just some but not other] compulsive sexual behaviors to play at a protected class? Um, yeah. Good luck with that.

And to that topic:

What JeffLV is saying here for those who skimmed over it is this.

1. The slippery slope is real

and

2. Gay's are being "practical" not letting on that they know this is true.

and

3. Discrimination is OK if gays do it, even by their silence or neglect of their "fellow sufferers".

And I would say that is because if they do, then mainstream Americans are going to drop them like a hot rock. The number one demographic supporting "gay marraige" outside of gays themselves are hetero women in relationships. If they caught wind for one instant that gay marraige also means that hubby can have two wives...well..lol...

Even the dullest of readers here knows what that means.