OP- Christy is not against Gay Marriage. He wouldn't veto it. The issue is he is pressured beyond belief to oppose it. He is the best thing the state has had going for it in a very long time...
Maine used to have legalized gay marriage
then it was de-legalized in a referendum
fuck
[QUOTE=Ownederd;34456529]Maine used to have legalized gay marriage
then it was de-legalized in a referendum
fuck[/QUOTE]
Same thing happened in California
It was legalized by the court, and then the people voted to ban it
[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;34456575]Same thing happened in California
It was legalized by the court, and then the people voted to ban it[/QUOTE]
Or well, 'the people' meaning a majority of 52%.
Doesn't make it any less of an atrocious decision, just means it's by the majority.
[QUOTE=Fariun;34456502]OP- Christy is not against Gay Marriage. He wouldn't veto it. The issue is he is pressured beyond belief to oppose it. He is the best thing the state has had going for it in a very long time...[/QUOTE]
Do you live in NJ?
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;34449342]Why? It gives you exactly the same rights. That's what the fight is about no? How would giving it another name change anything?[/QUOTE]
[img]http://i.imgur.com/y8h5U.jpg[/img]
these both gave the same water so what's the big deal???
[QUOTE=coolsteve;34442011]They should call it a civil union as opposed to marriage.
Marriage is holy matrimony between a man and woman under God, and homosexuals cannot do that.
I'm fine with them getting the same rights and everything, just don't call it a marriage, because it isn't.[/QUOTE]
Marriage has nothing to do with religion. It's a legal process. The marriage CEREMONY is religious, but we're talking about the legal side of things here.
Holy crap I'm so fucking TIRED of these politicians.
"I don't care what the people who elected me think, I will get what I want!"
[QUOTE=bull3tmagn3t;34446319]But isn't having a relgious belief a right... and aren't you in short taking away/limiting people's rights or beliefs... Therefore making yourself as bad as the people who are trying to stop gay marriage...[/QUOTE]
What? So your right to have a religion also gives you the right to stop people from doing something that does not affect you in any way, at all, no matter how far it goes? If one man marries another man, your life will not be affected at all, and you just want to take away their rights. You cant hate on people because you have the right to have a religion...
[QUOTE=Zeke129;34457474][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/y8h5U.jpg[/IMG]
these both gave the same water so what's the big deal???[/QUOTE]
Already addressed that. But yeah fucking zing man. Physical segregation and difference of name. Same thing, totally. Just like "mother" and "father" I mean we should just call both "parent" cause otherwise it's segregation, sexism and different names basically means one is inferior.
[editline]30th January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=archangel125;34454432]This is not a battle over a definition of terms. The whole 'marriage is a religious construct' thing is one excuse. Once that's eliminated, the bigots will find another convenient excuse. This is about people fighting for civil rights against a group that would strip them of those rights, and words are irrelevant.[/QUOTE]
If you don't care about the name and the only objective is to get them same rights why not go with the union?
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;34451069]First you talk about changing and dividing something that already exist, then you talk about separating people physically. And you act like it's the same thing as creating something new that does exactly the same thing as something else under a different name.
Marriage at the moment is understood as a legal contract binding male and female (by many people). To give same-sex couples same rights you either have to change what "marriage" is or create something that does the same thing for the group that doesn't fit under the definition of marriage. The conflict comes from the fact that some people want the marriage to stay what it is, union between male and female, while others want it to be union between two people disregarding the sexes. Anything you don't agree with up to this point?
Why is there a separate name for female and male they are both people. Why not just call both people? Oh shit cause they are different? Same-sex union and male-female marriage would be different too, both would be a social union or legal contract between people. I simply can't fathom how having a different name for something that does basically the same implies that one is worse than the other. If it's the equal rights you're fighting for, that would be a perfect way of getting it more or less without resistance. Then later you can fight to merge the both unions under the same name. It would surely go easier than struggling to change other people's definitions of marriage and make them understand straight away.
And you're making fun of religious people or whoever opposes allowing same-sex couples to marry because they give additional meanings and values to "marriage" but you do the same thing. For me marriage is a legal bond between two people, not some fucking mystical thing.
[editline]30th January 2012[/editline]
And don't get me wrong, I'd love it if everyone would accept same-sex marriage and just get along. But I'm being realistic here. Trying to come up with a solution. That might not be perfect from the start but may lead to that point.[/QUOTE]
your whole argument seems to fall on its fucking face when faced with the little fact that A: you're proposing a system of seperate but equal and B: changing the definition of marriage has ALWAYS happened. There is no set definition, people have changed, radically slow, what marriage means throughout the entire course of human history.
Your solution, if you can call it that, is part of the problem.
[editline]30th January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;34459648]Already addressed that. But yeah fucking zing man. Physical segregation and difference of name. Same thing, totally. Just like "mother" and "father" I mean we should just call both "parent" cause otherwise it's segregation, sexism and different names basically means one is inferior.[/quote]
you'd nail that totally sweet zing if you actually knew the entomology of mother and father.
and the fucking fact that it's "physical" means nothing. There's still the psychological impact. Unless you're saying the idea of marriage is so ridiculously fake people should get over it, simply calling it physical means nothing
[quote]If you don't care about the name and the only objective is to get them same rights why not go with the union?[/QUOTE]
Because, and this is REALLY fucking easy to understand, they want the same rights as everyone else. They want to be married like straight people, not civilly unionised. And it also makes them feel inferior, do you not know how fucking demeaning it is to be separated and treated as if you're somehow lesser than the majority? No, you obviously don't. Because you're a straight male who doesn't understand anything about the world around him.
...What was that about states being able to follow basic human rights?
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34460175]your whole argument seems to fall on its fucking face when faced with the little fact that A: you're proposing a system of seperate but equal and B: changing the definition of marriage has ALWAYS happened. There is no set definition, people have changed, radically slow, what marriage means throughout the entire course of human history.
Your solution, if you can call it that, is part of the problem.[/QUOTE]
So instead of giving them the rights right now and then just fighting to get it under the same name you're going to fight for years with "radically slow" change of what marriage is. Great logic.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34460175]you'd nail that totally sweet zing if you actually knew the entomology of mother and father.
and the fucking fact that it's "physical" means nothing. There's still the psychological impact. Unless you're saying the idea of marriage is so ridiculously fake people should get over it, simply calling it physical means nothing[/QUOTE]
There is the psychological impact you attach to it. Same like the other side of the argument. You think they will recognize same sex marriage as something equal to male-female marriage simply because the law has changed? Nothing's gonna fucking change on the "psychological impact" aspect. They will still think it's inferior.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34460175]Because, and this is REALLY fucking easy to understand, they want the same rights as everyone else. [/QUOTE]
The union would give them exactly the same rights but obviously that's not what you're fighting for.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34460175]They want to be married like straight people, not civilly unionised.[/QUOTE]
Marriage is an union called "marriage" with socially attached values to that. The whole problem is based on 2 sides of the argument attaching different values to it. Both sides equally retarded.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34460175]And it also makes them feel inferior, [/QUOTE]
Oh so it's not about giving them equal rights then it's about social approval and making them feel normal then. Thanks for clearing that up.
Your argument falls down when you realize that they would be still threated the same by the people who oppose it if the law would pass. They would still call it lesser-marriage.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34460175]do you not know how fucking demeaning it is to be separated and treated as if you're somehow lesser than the majority? No, you obviously don't. Because you're a straight male who doesn't understand anything about the world around him.[/QUOTE]
Oh it's the enlightened one. I had that phase when I was 18 and thought I know everything.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;34460557]So instead of giving them the rights right now and then just fighting to get it under the same name you're going to fight for years with "radically slow" change of what marriage is. Great logic.[/quote]
Instead of just giving them the fucking right to marry now, you want to adopt a policy of separate but equal. Great Logic, you would have had a blast during the Jim Crow era.
[quote]There is the psychological impact you attach to it. Same like the other side of the argument. You think they will recognize same sex marriage as something equal to male-female marriage simply because the law has changed? Nothing's gonna fucking change on the "psychological impact" aspect. They will still think it's inferior.[/quote]
It doesn't matter if they think it's inferior. There's a difference in having the POWER to make gay people feel inferior and just being general shit heads.
[quote]The union would give them exactly the same rights but obviously that's not what you're fighting for.[/quote]
Clearly you don't know why people get married. When you get older, you should ask your parents.
people don't get married just to have rights, they get married to fucking get married. To be with someone for the rest of their life. "Civil Unions" ruins any and all meaning behind marriage. Marriage is an entirely symbolic union, it just has bureaucracy and rights attached to it now. Not that it's a bad thing, but to make that the symbol of marriage is horrendous.
[quote]Marriage is an union called "marriage" with socially attached values to that. The whole problem is based on 2 sides of the argument attaching different values to it. Both sides equally retarded.[/quote]
That's the issue, instead of not allowing ONE type of value, why not allow them all? You're arguing against your point now. You're saying it doesn't matter what value is behind it, but before you were putting importance on it. Methinks you just hate gay people, which would make sense from your past homophobic ramblings.
[quote]Oh so it's not about giving them equal rights then it's about social approval and making them feel normal then. Thanks for clearing that up. [/quote]
Lol, strawman away boyo, won't win your messy and bigoted argument.
Look above, I already explain this.
[quote]Your argument falls down when you realize that they would be still threated the same by the people who oppose it if the law would pass. They would still call it lesser-marriage.[/quote]
lol, not really, the point isn't removing people who dislike it, but removing their power to prevent it.
There are people who still hate interracial marriage, yet I don't see interracial couples unhappy about their rights. Just to clarfy so I can keep using this argument, on top of being a massive homophobe, are you also a racist?
[quote]Oh it's the enlightened one. I had that phase when I was 18 and thought I know everything.[/QUOTE]
Which is funny because you're probably older and you still don't know anything.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34460826]Instead of just giving them the fucking right to marry now, you want to adopt a policy of separate but equal. Great Logic, you would have had a blast during the Jim Crow era. [/QUOTE]
It's a temporal fix. It's going to take time to change what marriage is, you said it yourself. Now you can either have no rights up to the point where it changes. Or same legal rights under a different name without the emotional value to the point where definition of marriage changes. Which one would you rather have?
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34460826]It doesn't matter if they think it's inferior. There's a difference in having the POWER to make gay people feel inferior and just being general shit heads. [/QUOTE]
I don't fucking get it. How is the name going to give them power. Nothing would be different from the point of view who oppose it if it had the same or different name.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34460826]Clearly you don't know why people get married. When you get older, you should ask your parents.
people don't get married just to have rights, they get married to fucking get married. To be with someone for the rest of their life. "Civil Unions" ruins any and all meaning behind marriage. Marriage is an entirely symbolic union, it just has bureaucracy and rights attached to it now. Not that it's a bad thing, but to make that the symbol of marriage is horrendous. [/QUOTE]
That's the fucking point. You don't fight for "equal rights". You fight for equal ceremony and meaning behind it. Now the people who are for same-sex marriage already see it equal to male-female marriage, having it under a different name wouldn't change how they look at it. Those who oppose it see it and will see it as inferior with or without different name. Are you getting what I'm saying? The name is not going to change the way both groups look at it.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34460826]Lol, strawman away boyo, won't win your messy and bigoted argument. [/QUOTE]
You already proved me right up there.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34460826]That's the issue, instead of not allowing ONE type of value, why not allow them all? You're arguing against your point now. You're saying it doesn't matter what value is behind it, but before you were putting importance on it.[/QUOTE]
What one type of value what are you talking about. For one side marriage is union of two people. For the other it's union between man and woman. You can't have both at the same time. One is within the other.
And you are either fighting for same rights, as in legal things. Or same value of the union. Which you already have if you are for it and will never have it if you're against it.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34460826]lol, not really, the point isn't removing people who dislike it, but removing their power to prevent it. [/QUOTE]
Power to prevent what? What are you talking about?
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34460826]There are people who still hate interracial marriage, yet I don't see interracial couples unhappy about their rights.[/QUOTE]
Why would they be unhappy because some other people believe in different values? I don't get it. They can't do anything about it. Same thing applies to same sex marriage. Why would they care that some people see their marriage as inferior? Because that would be the case regardless of the name.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34460826]Methinks you just hate gay people, which would make sense from your past homophobic ramblings. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34460826]Just to clarfy so I can keep using this argument, on top of being a massive homophobe, are you also a racist?[/QUOTE]
Oh it's the time for "blind accusations and namecalling to undermine your opponent in discussion" time already? You don't know a damn thing about me. I hate any kind of discrimination. But I live in reality not in a world I created with my limited understanding while assuming it's the ultimate truth. If I could make people treat same-sex marriage the same as male-female marriage I would do it. But that's not possible and I realize that. The name is not going to change a thing in how both sides think.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34460826]Which is funny because you're probably older and you still don't know anything.[/QUOTE]
Or I had a reality check and I stopped thinking I'm a fucking prodigy and know everything and that I'm always right.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34460826]*snip*[/QUOTE]
I'm all for giving full, equal rights, in name name and spirit, to everyone. But: Don't use "lol" in a debate because it looks/sounds stupid. Don't label people when trying to prove a point, because it only serves to weaken your side - let bigots call names, you should stick with logical reasons why barring same-sex marriage is dumb.
It has been said before:
[QUOTE=archangel125;34454432]...This is about people fighting for civil rights against a group that would strip them of those rights, and words are irrelevant.[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure about words being irrelevant, but archangel has a point: Why can't we have *equal* rights between these two groups?
[QUOTE=bord2tears;34461378]I'm all for giving full, equal rights, in name name and spirit, to everyone. But: Don't use "lol" in a debate because it looks/sounds stupid. Don't label people when trying to prove a point, because it only serves to weaken your side - let bigots call names, you should stick with logical reasons why barring same-sex marriage is dumb.
It has been said before:
I'm not sure about words being irrelevant, but archangel has a point: Why can't we have *equal* rights between these two groups?[/QUOTE]
frannkly it's a lot less annoying than sil's little HAAHAHHAAHAHAHHAAHHAAHHAAHAHHAAHAHHAHA SEE I FIND THIS FUNNY WHEN I PROBABLY DON'T routine.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34461462]frannkly it's a lot less annoying than sil's little HAAHAHHAAHAHAHHAAHHAAHHAAHAHHAAHAHHAHA SEE I FIND THIS FUNNY WHEN I PROBABLY DON'T routine.[/QUOTE]
I do find it funny when people are absurdly hypocritical. Or when people resort to namecalling while acting like they are the more intelligent ones.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;34461273]It's a temporal fix. It's going to take time to change what marriage is, you said it yourself. Now you can either have no rights up to the point where it changes. Or same legal rights under a different name without the emotional value to the point where definition of marriage changes. Which one would you rather have?
I don't fucking get it. How is the name going to give them power. Nothing would be different from the point of view who oppose it if it had the same or different name.
That's the fucking point. You don't fight for "equal rights". You fight for equal ceremony and meaning behind it. Now the people who are for same-sex marriage already see it equal to male-female marriage, having it under a different name wouldn't change how they look at it. Those who oppose it see it and will see it as inferior with or without different name. Are you getting what I'm saying? The name is not going to change the way both groups look at it.
You already proved me right up there.
What one type of value what are you talking about. For one side marriage is union of two people. For the other it's union between man and woman. You can't have both at the same time. One is within the other.
And you are either fighting for same rights, as in legal things. Or same value of the union. Which you already have if you are for it and will never have it if you're against it.
Power to prevent what? What are you talking about?
Why would they be unhappy because some other people believe in different values? I don't get it. They can't do anything about it. Same thing applies to same sex marriage. Why would they care that some people see their marriage as inferior? Because that would be the case regardless of the name.
Oh it's the time for "blind accusations and namecalling to undermine your opponent in discussion" time already? You don't know a damn thing about me. I hate any kind of discrimination. But I live in reality not in a world I created with my limited understanding while assuming it's the ultimate truth. If I could make people treat same-sex marriage the same as male-female marriage I would do it. But that's not possible and I realize that. The name is not going to change a thing in how both sides think.
Or I had a reality check and I stopped thinking I'm a fucking prodigy and know everything and that I'm always right.[/QUOTE]
3/4 of your post is just you being confused.
Let me simplify it for you:
marriage is a symbolic ritual, one that people wish to have. This is not JUST about rights granted, but the meaning and the chance to have that symbolic ritual.
gays want to have the same rights and image as straight couples. They want to get married, not be placed in a civil partnership. What you're proposing is separate but equal, plain and simple. And quite frankly it's disgusting.
Also, may I point out your "realist' look on this issue is harmful because it teaches people to be okay with injustice. And what is this about being a realist? As if gay rights is this far fetched idea that seems so distant.
[editline]30th January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;34461539]I do find it funny when people are absurdly hypocritical. Or when people resort to namecalling while acting like they are the more intelligent ones.[/QUOTE]
I can insult you and still make a valid point.
Let me try it:
You're a bigot who knows absolutely nothing about anything, and your opinions are likened to the Separate but equal racist laws of the past and for that, it is ethically wrong. Plus the fact that in Article 6 it says any treaties or charters signed into US law becomes US law, therefore the UNDHR of the UN which makes up its charter, which the US signed, guarantees marriage as a right. So it is both illegal and unethical to give them civil unions as opposed to marriage. And your argument that they get the rights of married couples fails when you realise they would have settled for that if they actually wanted it, but they don't want to settle because they shouldn't have to settle. And if you have any other qualms about it, there's no bound and I can just tell you to get the fuck over it. Also you're a bigot. And you're ignorant.
See, I combined the two!
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34461563]3/4 of your post is just you being confused.
Let me simplify it for you: [/QUOTE]
Thank you very much. But not really. Were you confused yourself? It's called projection.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34461563]marriage is a symbolic ritual, one that people wish to have. This is not JUST about rights granted, but the meaning and the chance to have that symbolic ritual.
gays want to have the same rights and image as straight couples. They want to get married, not be placed in a civil partnership. What you're proposing is separate but equal, plain and simple. And quite frankly it's disgusting. [/QUOTE]
See so it's not fight for "equal rights" as you claim. It's about "equal [I]image [/I]and rights".
Is putting same-sex union under the same name as female-male union: "marriage", going to change the image? Because like I said. Those who are for it already see it as equal, those who don't, never will. Changing the official definition is not going to change their understanding about it.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34461563]Also, may I point out your "realist' look on this issue is harmful because it teaches people to be okay with injustice. And what is this about being a realist? As if gay rights is this far fetched idea that seems so distant.[/QUOTE]
What? The realistic part wasn't about gay rights, it was about understanding that the name is not going to change the opinion of bigots about gay couples. They will always treat it as inferior. And isn't it all about it? Treating gay couples as inferior? The name is not going to have any influence on the way they think about it.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34461563]You're a bigot [/QUOTE]
Namecalling based on opinion.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34461563] who knows absolutely nothing about anything, [/QUOTE]
Opinion. Implying superiority.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34461563]and your opinions are likened to the Separate but equal racist laws of the past and for that, it is ethically wrong.[/QUOTE]
It's ethically wrong to use a temporary fix to a problem that's going to persist.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34461563]Plus the fact that in Article 6 it says any treaties or charters signed into US law becomes US law, therefore the UNDHR of the UN which makes up its charter, which the US signed, guarantees marriage as a right. So it is both illegal and unethical to give them civil unions as opposed to marriage.[/QUOTE]
If it's legal why isn't it in effect? Why is there any discussion about it? Law is law.
And I guess it's more beneficial for same-sex couples to not have either rights or meaning of their union as opposed to having the rights but not the meaning.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34461563]And your argument that they get the rights of married couples fails when you realise they would have settled for that if they actually wanted it, but they don't want to settle because they shouldn't have to settle.[/QUOTE]
They don't have to settle for shit. What part of TEMPORARY FIX you don't understand? Do you even read what you reply to?
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34461563] Also you're a bigot.[/QUOTE]
What do you base this on apart from your prejudice assumptions?
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34461563] And you're ignorant. [/QUOTE]
I'm not the ideologist who thinks he knows everything here.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34461563] See, I combined the two![/QUOTE]
Wow, aren't you proud of yourself? You act like you're 16 who desperatevily seeks gratification on the internet because you get none in real life. Now I'm not saying you are that person. You just give me that impression.
I have a couple of friends in my school who are gay or bi. I don't see why we shouldn't allow same-sex marriages in New Jersey or in the rest of the US. If the religious nutcases are going to act all butthurt about it, they can just deal with it.
[QUOTE=TheFallen(TF2);34462451]I have a couple of friends in my school who are gay or bi. I don't see why we shouldn't allow same-sex marriages in New Jersey or in the rest of the US. If the religious nutcases are going to act all butthurt about it, they can just deal with it.[/QUOTE]
The problem is they are in power.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;34462521]The problem is they are in power.[/QUOTE]
and your solution stops there
"appease them!" That'll work
[editline]30th January 2012[/editline]
You're worse than the people who prevent gay marriage from being implemented, your solution is to go ahead and say "oh well" I believe there's a quote somewhere for people like you.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34462857]and your solution stops there
"appease them!" That'll work[/QUOTE]
My solution ends there? Where the fuck do you get it from? YOUR solution ends there, exactly there. For you it's either everything or nothing, and you're going to stay with nothing for a while. My solution at least gives the rights to same-sex couples. And it would probably pass since it doesn't desecrate the marriage or some other bullshit like that.
Seriously why aren't you getting it? Lets say it's gonna take 5 years until you get them to recognize same-sex marriage as equal to male-female marriage. What I'm proposing would give same sex couples at least the rights for those 5 years, then everything. Yours leaves them with nothing for 5 years up to the point when they get everything. Which is better for them? And going my way would probably reduce the time a bit too.
[editline]30th January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34462857]
You're worse than the people who prevent gay marriage from being implemented, your solution is to go ahead and say "oh well" I believe there's a quote somewhere for people like you.[/QUOTE]
Haha what? I'm worse? What the fuck. Are you stupid really? Because there is nothing about giving up the fight in what I'm proposing. You are making it sound like I'm going "yeah well we can't win with them, lets give up". Is your reading comprehension that bad?
The objective is still to give the same rights and image to same-sex marriage with something that would at least give them the rights until that happens. And how the fuck is that worse? It's even better than what you're proposing. You are just as bad as the people against gay marriage. You both create a situation where same-sex couples don't even have the rights.
I'm sorry but I'm not interested in further discussion with you in both of the threads. I would continue it if you'd refer to what I'm actually saying not to something you imagined. But because of the way you're arguing, replying to something I never said, I just keep repeating myself and the discussion is going nowhere, you just keep on coming with new counterarguments to imaginary arguments. I just see no point talking to you. It's obvious you don't even try to understand what I'm saying. It's like talking to a creationist.
[QUOTE=bull3tmagn3t;34446319]But isn't having a relgious belief a right... and aren't you in short taking away/limiting people's rights or beliefs... Therefore making yourself as bad as the people who are trying to stop gay marriage...[/QUOTE]
:suicide:
[QUOTE=ewitwins;34455271]It's marriage they both deserve marriage and not "civil unions" because that would bring down everything they've been fighting for.[/QUOTE]
uh no, marriage in churches respects religious establishment which is against the constitution.
any couple as long they're adults and consensual should file for civil union papers, then they can decide to call them whatever they want, marriage, unioned, together, or whatever and get married in the churches if they want to
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
