• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

N.J. Legislature approves gay civil unions (1 Viewer)

Way to go New Jersey! A forward step on the road of equality. :)
 
That is good news........Every American should have the same Civil Rights regardless of their Sexual Orientation.....
 
Great, lets now call all of them civil unions, regardless of heterosexuals or homosexuals. Expunge marriage all together from law.
This should not be separate but equal, this should be the same all the way around.
Boy, that first row looks pretty pissed.
061214_gayMarriage_hmed_3p.hmedium.jpg


But that second row and beyond, wow, really gay.
 
NJ is the state that is made the most fun of in any movie and is the butt of the most jokes when it comes to any state in the Union and now NJ got something right? You don't think the fumes or the toxic waste got to the legistature?

All hail NJ and maybe now the jokes will cease b/c gays can get "married" and Corzeen (local NJ joke on his name, 'cuz he's a fraidy cat that won't set foot on a radio program that would tear him from stem to stern) will be running in the Democrat primaries...President Corzine. No thanks, but trust me, he pushed it to get his name on the ballot. Nothing more, nothing less. NJ might be a blue state, but it's also a blue-collar state. Huge manly-man unions with no tolerance for gays, not in this capacity. It's a politcal move for Corzine. And only that. But keep thinking it wasn't.

:rofl
 
jfuh said:
Great, lets now call all of them civil unions, regardless of heterosexuals or homosexuals. Expunge marriage all together from law.
This should not be separate but equal, this should be the same all the way around.
Boy, that first row looks pretty pissed.
061214_gayMarriage_hmed_3p.hmedium.jpg


But that second row and beyond, wow, really gay.
Click to expand...

Sorry it has nothing to do with marriage.....
 
jfuh said:
Only civil rights?
Click to expand...

all rights and I know where your going with this.....They can marry anyone of the opposite sex the same as I can..........They want a special right......If they can have a special right I want one too................I want to marry 3 women.......:roll:
 
As one who lives in NJ, I must say I am very proud of my state. It is for reasons like this that I LOVE living here and never want to leave.
 
Navy Pride said:
all rights and I know where your going with this.....They can marry anyone of the opposite sex the same as I can..........They want a special right......If they can have a special right I want one too................I want to marry 3 women.
Click to expand...
Again that same old bullshit statement.
You are forcing them to wed with the equivalence of forcing you to love another man. Can you love another man NP? But I know you won't answer this, we've been through this already.
You endorse separate but equal when it's simply not equal if it has to be separate.
They just want the same rights that you and I have, to marry the person that they love. Would you marry someone you don't love? If two ppl are in love why do you deny them wedlock? Why keep denying them that right as you prescribe? Oh right, again, you won't answer that either
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
As one who lives in NJ, I must say I am very proud of my state. It is for reasons like this that I LOVE living here and never want to leave.
Click to expand...
What about the "you can't self serve" at the gas pump thingy? Isn't that a bit demeaning?
 
Navy Pride said:
all rights and I know where your going with this.....They can marry anyone of the opposite sex the same as I can..........They want a special right......If they can have a special right I want one too................I want to marry 3 women.......:roll:
Click to expand...

You have said some very asinine things before but the statement bolded above just tops them all. Why in the world would a gay person want to marry a heterosexual? Please explain that to me. I would love to see what you have to say. I'm am really at a loss for words. That was just...asinine. OMG!
 
jfuh said:
Great, lets now call all of them civil unions, regardless of heterosexuals or homosexuals. Expunge marriage all together from law.
This should not be separate but equal, this should be the same all the way around.
Boy, that first row looks pretty pissed.
061214_gayMarriage_hmed_3p.hmedium.jpg


But that second row and beyond, wow, really gay.
Click to expand...


Haahahahahaha thats so true...I don't know if you could find a more stereotypical group possible. In the front you have dour faced frumpy old religious people frowning, and in the back you have giddy young gay men expressing their joy through spirit fingers.

hilarious.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
As one who lives in NJ, I must say I am very proud of my state. It is for reasons like this that I LOVE living here and never want to leave.
Click to expand...

And just when I started to think you had good judgment....sigh.
 
Navy Pride said:
all rights and I know where your going with this.....They can marry anyone of the opposite sex the same as I can..........They want a special right......If they can have a special right I want one too................I want to marry 3 women.......:roll:
Click to expand...

Don't look at it as them getting a special right, because you'll have the same right too.

Currently, you can marry someone of the opposite gender and so can they.

If gay marriage is legalized, yes, they can marry people of the same gender, but so can you!

I see no disparity there.
 
RightatNYU said:
Haahahahahaha thats so true...I don't know if you could find a more stereotypical group possible. In the front you have dour faced frumpy old religious people frowning, and in the back you have giddy young gay men expressing their joy through spirit fingers.

hilarious.
Click to expand...
A picture perfect Kodak moment.
Priceless
 
But the elephant in the room IS, if this is a matter of equality and that rules shouldn't preclude where someone finds love . . .

How CAN you then argue for the continued ban on polygamy?

Or other combinations as I'm sure some will come up with?

Anyone want to tackle that one?
 
jfuh said:
Again that same old bullshit statement.
You are forcing them to wed with the equivalence of forcing you to love another man. Can you love another man NP? But I know you won't answer this, we've been through this already.
You endorse separate but equal when it's simply not equal if it has to be separate.
They just want the same rights that you and I have, to marry the person that they love. Would you marry someone you don't love? If two ppl are in love why do you deny them wedlock? Why keep denying them that right as you prescribe? Oh right, again, you won't answer that either
Click to expand...

Because if you allow gays to marry the you open up a whole bucket of worms under the 14th amendment equal protection clause.........Polygamy, inn er family marriages (non sexual) for the benefits just to name two..............If you alllow one you have to allow all.......
 
Navy Pride said:
Because if you allow gays to marry the you open up a whole bucket of worms under the 14th amendment equal protection clause.........Polygamy, inn er family marriages (non sexual) for the benefits just to name two..............If you alllow one you have to allow all.......
Click to expand...

You cite non-sexual inner-family marriages and polygamy, and say "just to name two"... I wonder what others you think there are?
Let's throw incestuous marriage in there too, just for the heck of it.
Now, you say, "......If you alllow one you have to allow all....".
Let's say that's true.
What if we did "allow them all"?
Who would suffer? Whose rights would it violate?

Certainly bestiality and child molestation would never be legalized, even under the redefined definition of "marriage", if that's where you're headed. Neither are consensual; both involve an unconsenting victim, a victim incapable of consent.

On another note, you'd just better hope there's never a national shortage of periods, because you sure the heck use up more than your quota..... ..... .... .... .... ... ...... .....

..... ;)
 
jfuh said:
What about the "you can't self serve" at the gas pump thingy? Isn't that a bit demeaning?
Click to expand...
I completely support the 'no self serve' situation. I have no desire to pump my own gas.
 
Well, a win for the gay power movement and another step toward Hollyweird's big dream of making homosexuality a norm on par with heterosexuality.

Let's all celebrate the continued destruction of all traditional values. YEA!!!!!!:2razz:

*cough*
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom