letsgoflyers81

SOURCE

Well it looks like same sex marriage is gaining some steam. Supposedly NJ is a stepping stone and other states will start recognizing same sex couples' right to marry. What's interesting here is the difference between MA and NJ. Although same sex marriage has been legal in MA for a while now, it's only been for MA residents. You can't travel there to get married and then go home. NJ, on the other hand, will allow non - residents to marry. That means anyone can go there to get married, then go back to whatever state they're from, and sue if necessary to have it recognized.

I really hate New Jersey for all the jug handles and world famous stench, but this is one move in the right direction.

sheek360

who cares? i say let em get married, it may be sin. but love is love. unless u want the greencard, then thats not love, unless said immigrant will pay u mad $ then its love. etc

atruhondagrl

Good for them dammit. I agree. I know more *** couples that have lasted longer than married straight couples.

__________________

Civic4u

Ooh! I better keep my mouth shut

sheek360

+10000000000

theres a lesbian couple across the street that have been together some 30 something years. and they dont touch each other or kiss each other or even hold hands when my kids are outside. I never asked them to be like that, but they must understand how hard it is for dad to explain to a 6 year old and 4 year old why 2 women are kissing. And i really do appreciate that courtesy they give me and mine. but yes, kudos for the NJ gays!

Jaranath

My two cents before the thread gets noisy:

Good for them indeed. A few details though: This isn't actually same-sex marriage, per se. What the court did was say the state had to allow marriage or something equivalent to it. So this will probably end up being "domestic partnership" or some such, with all the rights and privileges of marriage. That will at least mildly disappoint some supporters who feel that using different terminology still stigmatizes homosexuality.

I'm a lot less clear on the whole inter-state thing, but I suppose different terminology might affect that.

atruhondagrl

Even a "domestic partnership" is a step forward. :)

__________________

sheek360

you may be right, protesting because you want to get married. then, settling on the equivalancy of it but with a differant name may piss some off.

foolio_67

I don't see why the government even spends time on this issue, there are actual IMPORTANT issues out there that need to be delt with. Whether the governments stance is for it or against it, any time spent on this is a waste of tax payers money.

sheek360

christian command theory, the US was built on those theories. If god says its wrong then the US says its wrong!

ballplaya4237

The Republican party spends time on it to gain support and control the "extremist" Christians that essentially believe they are superior to homosexuals. The Democrats take the other side because it's the other side.

I heard somthing intresting yesterday, a group of scientists say they have observed homosexual behavior in over 150 species. This would lead most people to the conclusion that homosexual behavior is indeed purely genetic and not a "sin".

On the original issue, I think it's a step in the right direction..everyone deserves equal rights.

letsgoflyers81

I think you hit the nail on the head. The Republican party uses same sex marriage to get conservatives to vote for them. What annoys me is that they can use it as a platform at all. Their reasons for opposing same sex marriage are because it supposedly degrades the sanctity of marriage and homosexuality is a sin. That's faith based politics and that's not what this country was founded on. The Bush administration seems to always overlook separation of church and state. The government should only be making decisions based on secular reasoning. Personally, I don't think the government should have anything to do with marriage. The way I see it, marriage is a personal and often religious affair. What the government should be allowing for everyone is a civil union. Something that ties people together financially and legally regardless of sex. If you want to get married, find a priest, minister, rabbi, whatever you want. If you want to file joint taxes, have power of attorney over each other, be the beneficiaries of each other's health and life insurance, get a civil union. That fixes everything because the government would provide the same service to everyone regardless of sexual orientation, and the religious zealots get to keep their sanctity. Everyone wins.

It's funny how people say homosexuality isn't natural. What's natural, something that's found in nature, right? Well there are so many species that exhibit homosexual behaviour, how can it be unnatural? Are gays a minority? Sure. So are lefties, redheads, and African Americans. Are they sinful and unnatural?

Personally, I'm not *** and I think two guys together are icky. Way too many dongs there. Two girls? Well I'm a pig so that's hot. But my preference is my preference and it's not my place to tell two consenting adults what they should or shouldn't do in the bedroom. And it's not the government's place either. You summed it up about as well as I could, equal protection under the law. Nothing more, nothing less.

atruhondagrl

[quote=Ballplaya4237]The Democrats take the other side because it's the other side.[/QOUTE]
I love it. I agree 100%.


+1 Agree with this as well 100%

__________________

Jaranath

This was a court challenge, not a governmental policy decision. The courts do not say "we think this is less important that stem cell research or Iraq, so we're declining to hear your case." That has nothing to do with the service courts provide to the public, and indeed would be a great disservice.

Homosexuality in one way or another is indeed well-known in the non-human natural world. However, very few biologists would claim it is "purely genetic." That heavily overestimates the current evidence and theories for the role of genetics in human and animal behavior. Many other factors are believed to affect sexual behavior in humans, including the course of development. There is not a "*** gene." There seem to be genes that offer some inclination to homosexuality in humans.

It would be very wrong to point to a person and say "everything about you, physically and mentally, is determined by your genes."

Tim

Very wrong indeed. Choice plays a huge role.

letsgoflyers81

Choice? Did you choose to be straight? I don't know about you, but I didn't wake up one morning and make a decision that I would spend my life lusting after boobs and poon instead of wangs and biceps. Why would anyone make a choice to be persecuted and limit themselves to a small portion of the population to find a mate? If you're ***, you're ***. It's who you are.

Tim

You're not understanding my point. I was commenting about what he said.

And I do however contend something about what you say. Do you choose to ACT on your lusts? If you do, that's a choice. Just as if a person lusted for flowers, moondust, alcohol, In-N-Out hamburgers, diet pills, or horses. It's one thing to crave such things and quite another to seek them out as a necessary thing in your life. Science and DNA ends (or at least is very limited) when it comes to explaining 'social science.' Then it all becomes choice.

letsgoflyers81

I never said having homosexual sex wasn't a choice. Of course acting on feelings in a choice. But if someone is ***, and feels the way the do and always have for no discernable reason, why deny that and act a way that feels wrong? Fast food, alcohol, drugs, etc. are vices that can harm you. What harm is there in loving another consenting adult? There's a big difference between being get and eating cheeseburgers.

Tim

So you're an advocate of NAMBLA too?

letsgoflyers81

The North American Marlon Brando Look Alikes, I'm OK with those guys.