Gay couples have the same marriage rights as heterosexual couples in New Jersey

[Elrathin]

This is under Breaking news for CNN, so no article yet just the banner on top of the site.

Gay couples have the same marriage rights as heterosexual couples under the New Jersey state constitution, the state Supreme Court rules.

That's great news. Eventually though I think this is going to go up to the USSC. We'll see what happens.

[dgridley]

'Committed same-sex couples must be afforded on equal terms the same rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples under the civil marriage statues.'

At this point, the Court does not consider whether committed same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, but only whether those couples are entitled to the same rights and benefits afforded to married heterosexual couples.'

Developing story at the Drudge Report.

[piratemonkey]

the same rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples under the civil marriage statues

Let me get this straight...

They have the "same rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples under the civil marriage statues," but that doesn't include the ability to get married?

Exactly how does that make sense?

[Newscaster]

Oh God, ther are going to get married and everybody else will abandon their homes and spouces becayuse of it. arghhhhhhhhh!!!!!

Yes, the State of New Jersey does NOT ban gay marriages or legal marriage style civil unions.

My God, we are all going to die.....or at least catch something!!!
Oh the humanity!!!!!!!

New Jersey's Supreme Court opened the door to gay marriage Wednesday, ruling that homosexuals are entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals, but leaving it to lawmakers to legalize same-sex unions. The high court gave lawmakers 180 days to rewrite marriage laws to either include same-sex couples or create a new system of civil unions for them. :shy:

Now lets see how many New Jersey couples run screaming to divorce court or who put off getting married because of this. But mostly, lets see how many prissy pots get their panties in an uproar!

[Labrocca]

I never liked Jersey anyways...not going there is already on my list of things to remember.

[AlonzoMourning23]

I was disappointed. I thought they'd require marriage.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

LOL, 6 months to get a constitutional amendment in to stop courts overriding the wishes of the people.

[AlonzoMourning23]

LOL, 6 months to get a constitutional amendment in to stop courts overriding the wishes of the people.



Many adults in the Garden State think gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to legally marry, according to a poll by the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers University released by the Star-Ledger. 50 per cent of respondents in New Jersey favour same-sex marriage.

In 2004, marriage certificates were issued to same-sex couples by local governments in the states of California, Oregon, New Mexico and New York. In May 2004, the state of Massachusetts allowed gay and lesbian partners to apply for marriage licenses, the first state-sanctioned homosexual weddings in the U.S.

Civil unions—currently available in the states of Vermont and Connecticut—give same-sex partners the same legal rights of married couples such as inheritance, insurance and hospital visiting privileges. A California law grants domestic partners the same legal rights of married couples, with the exception of filing joint income tax returns. 65 per cent of respondents in New Jersey support the concept of civil unions.

Since 2004, New Jersey couples can enter into a domestic partnership. In February, the New Jersey Supreme Court heard arguments in a case that seeks to legalize same-sex marriage in the state. A decision is still pending.

Over the past two years, 19 American states have enacted amendments to define marriage as the union between a man and a woman. Seven more will hold votes on the matter this year.

Polling Data

Would you favour or oppose allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally?

Favour
50%

Oppose
44%

Not sure
6%



http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/12361

Wanna bet?

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Wanna bet?


No gay marriage rights come from the people, they all come from courts.

DOMA's come from the people.

[Elrathin]

No gay marriage rights come from the people, they all come from courts.


Desegregation came from the courts too. I bet that pissed you off. :rolleyes:

[AlonzoMourning23]

Wanna bet?


No gay marriage rights come from the people, they all come from courts.

DOMA's come from the people.


And you're going to get an amendment when only 44% oppose it? And when, as with any amendment, support for such things usually doesn't get the support of the ones who are borderline to begin with.

[Newscaster]

There are some people who simply dont understand what this country is all about.
Thats too bad.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

And you're going to get an amendment when only 44% oppose it?


That wouldn't be one of those fraudulant polls, would it?
http://dimmykarras.blogspot.com/2004/01/twisting-mass-gay-marriage-poll.html
http://www.massnews.com/2005_editions/9_sept/92305_poll_showing_loss_is_a_lie.htm

A lot more links available, but basically for every poll that shows support I can post one that shows opposition, and the only way we will know for sure is when the voters get the chance to speak instead of the courts.

[AlonzoMourning23]

And you don't need to look at polls for the second link. The state congress is struggling to get 25% to vote for the bill, which is needed to put it to a state vote.

And if you read the first link:

Today's Globe reports that Ron Crews, the carpet-bagging former Georgia state legislator who has come to Massachusetts to try to get gay marriage banned, now admits he "misspoke" when he willfully misrepresented the findings of a Zogby poll on the subject:

He misspoke, of course, in a way that just happened to twist the poll's findings in a way favorable to the position his group is advocating. Of course, the American Family Association's poll has already demonstrated to us that these people don't really want to find out what the public thinks but rather give a popular imprimatur to their pre-existing views (explanation).



It's about how your side twisted the data, but was quickly refuted.

And, the poll I posted was a 2006 poll in new jersey, yours don't address that.

[Anti-Racism]

They have the "same rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples under the civil marriage statues," but that doesn't include the ability to get married?


This issue has always been about health care. Work a job, you get healthcare options that include "and your family." But these entities didn't recognize a man having another man as his family. So what NJ is doing is allowing civil unions to have the same legal/tax status as married couples, without calling it marriage.

A big whatever to the whole thing. Government regulates marriage... well, unless that government is of one religion it's no longer a religious definition of marriage.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

It's about how your side twisted the data, but was quickly refuted.

And, the poll I posted was a 2006 poll in new jersey, yours don't address that.


I posted one link where a poll was misrepresented by one side, another where it was misrepresented by the other, but the point remains valid, polls are tools, not science.

The only way to know for sure is when the voters have a voice. In the US, state by state it looks like the US pop is turning out to stop this gay marriage movement.

[AlonzoMourning23]

But the vast majority of states do not have it.

The examples that you gave are not issues with the polls, but issues of people describing them.

But properly conducted polls are science. Science is not always entirely accurate. Polls are not perfect, but they are more accurate than any alternative.

But, again, what texas does in response to MA is not an argument. If you could conduct a large poll on same sex marriage in texas, then legalize same sex marriage in Texas and 2 or 3 years later conduct another study on public opinion, the results of that would be relevant. But without legalizing it in texas (or wherever), the actions of those states are not relevant. As their voters are acting on the fear of what may come, not in response to what they've already been living with.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

But the vast majority of states do not have it.


Actually 20 states have laws that define marriage as one man one woman, and 8 more vote Nov 7th. 41 states total define marriage by either statute or constitution.

A slim majority of states do not have a state DOMA, but that may well be reversed in a couple weeks.

As far as polls, they are science, but they are not accurate, nore are the always unbiased.

Look at Oregon, 3000 gay unions allowed in portland, followed by the voters voting against gay marriage.

Voters overwhelming reject gay marriage when given the choice, familiarity with gay marriage doesn't temper that.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Actually 20 states have laws that define marriage as one man one woman, and 8 more vote Nov 7th. 41 states total define marriage by either statute or constitution.


That was not what I said. Again, the vast majority of states do not have same sex marriage.

Look at Oregon, 3000 gay unions allowed in portland, followed by the voters voting against gay marriage.


Funny, I think it was legal for a matter of days or weeks there, not years. And, again, if Portland were able to legalize for a year or two, polls of orgeon would be meaningless, polls of portland would be evidence.

Voters overwhelming reject gay marriage when given the choice, familiarity with gay marriage doesn't temper that.

Well lets see how far that gets in MA. During primaries the only incumbent defeated was one of the most vocal opponents of same sex marriage, and for governor a very vocal supporter of same sex marriage has a substantial lead. In the legislature, opposition to it has dropped from around half to where it's debatable whether they're at 25% now. And polls conducted by reputable organization, even if they were funded interest groups, where not conducted by them.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Well lets see how far that gets in MA. During primaries the only incumbent defeated was one of the most vocal opponents of same sex marriage, and for governor a very vocal supporter of same sex marriage has a substantial lead. In the legislature, opposition to it has dropped from around half to where it's debatable whether they're at 25% now. And polls conducted by reputable organization, even if they were funded interest groups, where not conducted by them.


Well, the current petition to get a anti gay marriage amendment on the ballot got a record number of signatures, three times the amount required. If it gets on the ballot most of the polls suggest it will pass. That is why the pro gay marriage people are desperate to keep it off the ballot and use the courts instead of the people.

If everything does go right people in MA will vote in 08 to ban gay marriage. I have a feeling they will follow virtually every other state that lets it's people decide and vote to protect marriage.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Flea, brown vs the board of education, plessy vs ferguson etc. used the courts. Civil rights generally should not be left to a public vote. Those issues would not have survived a public vote, nor should they have had to.

If it gets on the ballot most of the polls suggest it will pass.

Which polls? Polls conducted in 2005 and 2006 show more opposition than support for banning same sex marriage, poles before that tended to show splits that can go either way. Though some, even by the conservative herald, showed advantages to the supporters of same sex marriage.

Before the ruling, you would be correct. Most did indicate that such an amendment would pass. Currently, the most you can reasonably argue is its a coin toss. There isn't any real evidence that a majority oppose it. What evidence there is suggest various degrees of majority support.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Gay marriage isn't the same as the civil rights cases you cited. Gays are not being segregated in schools or on railroads.

Most polls show more support to ban gay marriage than to legalize it, the two polls funded by gay marriage groups are so far from the rest that the only logical conclusion is that they are flawed.

[maartena]

Gay marriage isn't the same as the civil rights cases you cited. Gays are not being segregated in schools or on railroads.


No, but married couples have a great legal advantage over non-married couples. Health insurance is just one of them, having to testify against your spouse is another, not being able to file taxes jointly is another, and there are many more.

And again, most gay couples I know could care less about marriage or not.... they just want the same rights as a married couple and the couples I know are just as satisfied with a civil union that will grant them those rights.

Most polls show more support to ban gay marriage than to legalize it, the two polls funded by gay marriage groups are so far from the rest that the only logical conclusion is that they are flawed.


Its a known fact that a majority is against gay marriage. That doesn't b automatically make it right though.

[Newscaster]

I wonder if you guys ever stop to think of the many fields of endeavor in which gays participate and in turn make our lives better.....like clothing and furniture design, music, literature, dance, art, medicine, politics, the law, the military, sports, and the list goes on and on. And these people pay their taxes, participate in community activities, including the PTA, and even the Boy and Girl Scouts. They do, in this lifetime everthing that we do except for just one thing...they are attracted to members of their same sex. And the only agenda they have is to be treated like anyone else and to enjoy the same benefits this country has to offer just like anyone else. Is that so freakin' hard for you to do?

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

the only agenda they have is to be treated like anyone else and to enjoy the same benefits this country has to offer just like anyone else.


They have that already.

[Elrathin]

They have that already.


They do not have a right to marry the one they love. That is a right straight people have and a right gay people should have too.

[Newscaster]

Flea Bit I am truly disappointed that despite all the things that people have told you here, you mind is still closed. In an age of communication, you dont allow ideas to enter your head but instead, you still dabble with ideas that went out of fashion years ago. Whether you like it or not, the world is changing and gays will get the right to marry and to do any damn thing they please as long as they dont hurt anyone or intrude on their rights. I'd hate to see what your reaction will be when that day comes around.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Flea Bit I am truly disappointed that despite all the things that people have told you here, you mind is still closed.


Despite what things people have told me here?

Gays already have the right to marry, same as anyone else.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

They have that already.


They do not have a right to marry the one they love.


You want them to have the right to marry their own mothers?

That's just sick!

[Elrathin]

You want them to have the right to marry their own mothers?

That's just sick!


The fact you thought that is the really sick part.

I know this may be difficult for you to do, but try to stay on topic. This thread is about gay marriage, not incest, not polygamy, not beastiality.

My comment, and you know it, was about gays.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

The fact you thought that is the really sick part.


You mean if you love your mother, that is sick to you?

[Elrathin]

You mean if you love your mother, that is sick to you?


No, you suggestion I was talking about incest. That was the sick part. Is there a reason you are even here in this thread since you won't stay on topic?

[Newscaster]

Flea, I wont even bother to respond to that last post to me from you.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

No, you suggestion I was talking about incest.


You said basically that people should be allowed to marry who they love. I love my mother, but I think passing a law to let me marry my mom is a bit over the top.

[Elrathin]

You said basically that people should be allowed to marry who they love. I love my mother, but I think passing a law to let me marry my mom is a bit over the top.


I never siad there should be and the context of what I said was in regards to GAYS marrying (You know the thread topic which you keep trying to go offtopic with) and not incest.

If you want to play with words fine, but it only shows you lost the debate pages ago because of it. Thanks for the affirmation of my victory. Now be gone.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

I never siad there should be and the context of what I said was in regards to GAYS marrying


Well, I think even you will admit that a blanket statement like "marry the one you love" is rather silly.

It just shows you can't stick to the details with any hope of winning this debate.

[Elrathin]

Well, I think even you will admit that a blanket statement like "marry the one you love" is rather silly.


No, I find the person taking it out of context silly since we were talking about gays, not incest.


It just shows you can't stick to the details with any hope of winning this debate.


Sorry I won pages ago, you have pbrought nothing to the table except word playing. Now be gone, I have won.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

No, I find the person taking it out of context silly since we were talking about gays, not incest.


You were talking about being able to marry who you love, right? Kids, pets, parents, etc... are all loved, right?

You lost this pages ago when you failed completely to show any valid reason to allow gays to pervert the marriage laws.

[Elrathin]

You were talking about being able to marry who you love, right? Kids, pets, parents, etc... are all loved, right?


No I was talking about marrying someone you love in the GAY COUPLE context, not the incest, kids, or whatever sick and twisted thing you can come up with in your mind.

Again, you lost pages ago when you started playing with words. Lost again didn't you?

[lily]

Flea Bit, I think I'd quite while you still had a shred of dignity left. Santorum's defense was debunked long ago and has nothing to do with the topic at hand. You know that is not what Elrathin ment, and "playing the innocent" is beneath you.

[underdawg]

The whole slippery slope argument that flea-bit is trying to get people involved with is just silly. The whole idea of a marriage between mother-son, father-daughter, or whatever is just stupid. They are already each other's next of kin. The legal benefits of marriage is meant to legally make two unrelated people joined as a family. If people want to have incest, they don't need to get married to do that.

Same thing applies to animals. In this country they are treated as possessions. Animals are not considered as citizens, they can not have a job. There is absolutely no legal benefit for getting married to an animal. People can get pretend marriages if they want to. And if it is bestiality that you seem to be worried about, well I sure it is already happening.

The same rules apply to the dead. They are no longer citizens. They can't make money. The dead are inanimate objects. There are no legal benefits to wanting to marry the dead. And if someone wanted to have sex with the dead, well I am sure that they are already doing it if they wanted to bad enough without a marriage license.

The polygamy slope has already been worked out I think with certain offshoots of the Morman church. A man just marries one woman and the rest of his wives just cohabit with them. Polygamy used to be practiced widely in the Old Testament , so I really don't see why a Christian would be so against it. God apparently didn't see anything wrong with it.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

You know that is not what Elrathin ment, and "playing the innocent" is beneath you.


Lily, this is beneath you. Elrathin refuses to stay with points that are based on reality. Marrying who you love isn't a right and it isn't practical in all cases.

If Elrathin wants to debate with logic he is welcome to, but silly responses on his part deserve nothing better than silly responses back..

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

They are no longer citizens.



So you are saying only citizens should be allowed to marry?

Why?

[Elrathin]

If Elrathin wants to debate with logic he is welcome to, but silly responses on his part deserve nothing better than silly responses back..


Silly about two gay people wanting to marry? Sorry, but that is reality and one tha will not go away. Being gay is not illegal and eventually gays marrying will not be either. On that day I shall toast the ignorance of those that opposed it.

The only thing you have proved is that you are willing to twist words around to include incest and any other sick and twisted thing you can come up with when you KNOW that isn't what I meant in this thread.

Your dishonesty is noted and recognized by all.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Silly about two gay people wanting to marry?


Yes, it's as silly as a man wanting to marry his mother.

[Elrathin]

Yes, it's as silly as a man wanting to marry his mother.


When the day comes that gay marriage is legalized, I hope you are around. Don't kill yourself over it though.

[Anti-Racism]

I'm not sure this issue is as important as how fast our country is declining...

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

When the day comes that gay marriage is legalized, I hope you are around. Don't kill yourself over it though.


What a silly thing to say.

Gay marriage won't be legalized, some form of civil union will likely be.

Maybe there will be a cure for homosexuality before long and it won't matter anyway.

[lily]

Flea_Bit_Monkey



What a silly thing to say.

Gay marriage won't be legalized, some form of civil union will likely be.

I'm sure that's what they said before allowing blacks and whites to marry.

Maybe there will be a cure for homosexuality before long and it won't matter anyway.

What a silly thing to say.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

I'm sure that's what they said before allowing blacks and whites to marry.


Ah, there is that silly "gay is the same as black" tactic. To bad it doesn't hold water.


What a silly thing to say.


So you think gay is a choice and not genetic?

I figured you would be in 'they were born gay" camp.

[lily]

I figured you would be in 'they were born gay" camp.

Am I suppose to feel guilt, stupidity, loathing, or what here, Flea Bit? Help me out.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

I figured you would be in 'they were born gay" camp.

Am I suppose to feel guilt, stupidity, loathing, or what here, Flea Bit? Help me out.


You are supposed to think.

Is gay something you choose, or something you are born with?

If it is something you are born with can prenatal screening eliminate it by allowing parents to have a partial birth abortion on babies wiuth a high probability of being gay, for their own good of course.

Make every child a loved and wanted child, or dead.

Isn''t that a liberal paradise?

[lily]

If it is something you are born with can prenatal screening eliminate it by allowing parents to have a partial birth abortion on babies wiuth a high probability of being gay, for their own good of course.

Well, Flea Bit........you stunned me. I'm speechless.......and that's a first. That is the "cure" you were talking about?

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Well, Flea Bit........you stunned me. I'm speechless.......and that's a first. That is the "cure" you were talking about?


Sure, as a dem you should embrace choice like that cure, right?

[lily]

http://www.fotosearch.com/thumb/IGS/IGS001/IS526-035.jpg

[underdawg]

I don't think that homosexuality is something that needs to be cured. It is not like we can't walk or talk or have some condition that requires us to be cared for for the rest of our lives. I know that Christians don't like it because of prejudiced reasons, but being homosexual is not a handicap. The only handicap we have is narrow minded people who try to make life hard for us.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

I don't think that homosexuality is something that needs to be cured.


But I keep hearing how homosexuals have such a hard life...

Anyway, if the ability to determine the probability of homosexuality in a fetus is achieved, isn't it the parents, more specifically the mother who has the right to terminate that existance prior to birth?

[Technocrat]

Homosexuals have a hard life for many reasons extrinsic to them. That is, their misery or hard life has little to nothing to do with the actual nature of being gay. Misery and suffering come from being attacked, mocked, treated like second-class citizens or being persecuted.

It's no different from an honour roll student being bullied by the jocks who can only bounce a ball in gym, but couldn't do a basic quadratic equation when given the formula. His intellectual superority to the jock is not the legitimate or ultimate cause of his unhappiness, but rather the retard in the locker who attacks him for being who he is. In this case, the homophobes are the highschool jock equivalent.

Really, if a mother wants to terminate a pregnancy if she knows the child will be homosexual, and there's no other way to have another child, I really don't see a problem. It wouldn't be any worse or better if she did it for another reason. The result would be the same.

There would also be nothing wrong with her wanting to design her child and engineer a non-gay one. There's nothing intrinsically good about being born gay, and facing the hardships they often do unfairly, it would probably be better not to have been born at all or to have at least been re-engineered not to be gay, at least prior to any sort of selfawareness or 'self-concept." Then it is up to them, as a person, to choose what they want and how they can weigh their own life. Prior, though, they aren't really losing anything, since at the time of the abortion, no person exists.

[Elrathin]

But I keep hearing how homosexuals have such a hard life...

They have a hard life because of gay bashing bigots.

[Technocrat]

Indeed, Elrathin. The mentality of Monkey-man is akin to blaming the rape-victim for being raped.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

They have a hard life because of gay bashing bigots.


No they don't, but nice try.

[Elrathin]

No they don't, but nice try.


Yes, they do, gay bashers are the ONLY ones making life hard for gays. THIS IS FACT. IF they were accepted, then they wouldn't have any problems.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Indeed, Elrathin. The mentality of Monkey-man is akin to blaming the rape-victim for being raped.


And the mentality of Technocrat is to falsely accuse people of rape out of personal dishonesty.

GAys are not victims, but they like to pretend they are for gain. How sleazy is that?

[Elrathin]

GAys are not victims, but they like to pretend they are for gain. How sleazy is that?


So when someone attacks a gay because they are gay, that means the gay is not a victim? Boy that comment is stupid.

[Technocrat]

Indeed, Elrathin. The mentality of Monkey-man is akin to blaming the rape-victim for being raped.


And the mentality of Technocrat is to falsely accuse people of rape out of personal dishonesty.

GAys are not victims, but they like to pretend they are for gain. How sleazy is that?



Apparently reading comprehension isn't your strength either. No one was accusing you of rape you [edited for personal attack].Â*Â*It's a logical analogy. Now go home and research what the big word means. Study it if you have to.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Apparently reading comprehension isn't your strength either. No one was accused of rape your blithering idiot.

Then why did you bring up a rape victim and a rapist?

Again you simply think you can replace logic with personal attacks and hide behind the bigot card to escape your deeds.

[Elrathin]

Again you simply think you can replace logic with personal attacks and hide behind the bigot card to escape your deeds.


If a gay is being attacked because they are gay, then it is because of gay bashing bigots. Nothing you can say can change that fact.

[Anti-Racism]

If a gay is being attacked because they are gay, then it is because of gay bashing bigots.


That's not quite true. If a murderer is being attacked for being a murderer... your argument is tautological, see?

I think the whole gay marriage thing is a distraction from the real problems. Sodomy might be bad in some views, but there are more important worse things going on in any sane view.

[Technocrat]

Flea_Bit_Monkey doesn't comprehend logic, so he think using logic over his bullshit is replacing logic with "name-calling."Â*Â*He still doesn't undestand that the logic in both scenarios is identical. He's hopeless. It's like trying to teach vector calculus to a turtle humping a figleaf.

I will outline it for everyone here who can comprehend.

1. He claims that gays are not victims
2. This is in response to gays being attacked
3. Attacking causes suffering, emotional pain, anguish.
4. The reason is that they are gay, which brings on the treatment.

Gays are not the victim if they are attacked, because gays bring it on by being gay. It's the same ridiculous logic misogynistists use against their rape victims. He's justifying causing misery to gays because they are gay and bring it on. Misogynists justify rape by claming the rape victim really isn't a victim because she brought it on.Â*Â*

I repeat that it's entirely hilarious that he thought I said he raped people, even though a [deleted] could understand that's not what the syntax of the sentence meant. He deliberately tried to obfuscate.

[Technocrat]

If you attack someone and cause him misery, even though he's harming no one, simply because he is something you don't like or approve of, you are committing a wrong.


Gays suffer much simply because they are accosted by others because they are gay. Being attacked because you are gay is no different from jocks picking on and causing misery to the "nerd" because he's a nerd. It's wrong.

He cannot justify his behaviour except through clever sophisms. Notice how he continually appeals to style.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

1. He claims that gays are not victims
2. This is in response to gays being attacked



Every group gets attacked, gays are not attacked out of proportion to non gays.

Gays have a vested interest in playing the victim, but playing a victim and being a victim are two seperate things, as everyone who understands logic knows.

[dgridley]

Some good points...

I think many people are stuck believing in the stereotypes.. Gays are more than just showtunes and interior decorating!



I wonder if you guys ever stop to think of the many fields of endeavor in which gays participate and in turn make our lives better.....like clothing and furniture design, music, literature, dance, art, medicine, politics, the law, the military, sports, and the list goes on and on.Â*Â*And these people pay their taxes, participate in community activities, including the PTA, and even the Boy and Girl Scouts. They do, in this lifetime everthing that we do except for just one thing...they are attracted to members of their same sex. And the only agenda they have is to be treated like anyone else and to enjoy the same benefits this country has to offer just like anyone else. Is that so freakin' hard for you to do?

[Technocrat]

Every group gets attacked, gays are not attacked out of proportion to non gays.

Ahhh ok, so everyone who knows logic knows that it's ok to accost people because they are gay because they are not attacked out of proportion to people who are not gay.

Moral bankruptcy. Check. The proportionality of attack, discrimination, and suffering inflicted on them because they are gay is unaltered in the morality of doing so whether or not they are attacked to the same per cent as others, more, or less.

[piratemonkey]

Every group gets attacked, gays are not attacked out of proportion to non gays.


I personally know at least a dozen gay men that have been physically assaulted just for being gay.

I don't know a single straight man who's been beaten for being straight.

Do you?

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Ahhh ok, so everyone who knows logic knows that it's ok to accost people


I don't know why you think that. I would certainly disagree with you on that point.

Just because people get accosted doesn't mean it is right to accost people.

[cs0564]

The argument that gays are beat up for being gay is ludicus. NO ONE should be accosted, but it happens everyday for no reason. Humans are beings by the law of "least common denominator". When someone cannot find any other way to fix a problem they accost or beat on someone by saying things like "your fat, ugly, gay, stupid, hick, queer, or whatever"! Words are mightier than the sword, but the sword sometimes is much easier for those who wish to bully.

[AlonzoMourning23]

The argument that gays are beat up for being gay is ludicus.Â*

How is their mental health being affected?
Gay and lesbian teens are at high risk because ‘their distress is a direct result of the hatred and prejudice that surround them,’ not because of their inherently gay or lesbian identity orientation.3
Gay, lesbian, and bisexual youth are two to three times more likely to attempt suicide than their heterosexual counterparts.4

How is their education being affected?
Gay teens in U.S. schools are often subjected to such intense bullying that they’re unable to receive an adequate education.5 They’re often embarrassed or ashamed of being targeted and may not report the abuse.
GLBT students are more apt to skip school due to the fear, threats, and property vandalism directed at them.6 One survey revealed that 22 percent of gay respondents had skipped school in the past month because they felt unsafe there.7
Twenty-eight percent of gay students will drop out of school. This is more than
three times the national average for heterosexual students.8
GLBT youth feel they have nowhere to turn. According to several surveys, four out of five gay and lesbian students say they don’t know one supportive adult at school.9


http://www.nmha.org/pbedu/backtoschool/bullyingGayYouth.cfm

Gay youth suffer the worst consequences of anti-gay bullying:
One of three gay students is physically harassed due to his or her sexual orientation
One in six is beaten badly enough to require medical attention

They are four times more likely to be threatened with a weapon at school

They are two to three times more likely to attempt suicide

28% drop out of school because of harassment


http://www.mhawestchester.org/mhaeducation/gaybullying.asp

[Technocrat]

Edit: No one is saying only gays are picked on or beat up for being someting they are. Many are. It doesn't make it any less wrong, and it does happen. It is immoral when someone beats someone up for being who he is, simply becaue he is disliked. It does happen.

Gays are assaulted, hit, maimed, and killed simply for being gay. It's bad when it happens to them and anyone else. Such behaviour against groups causes self-loathing, suicide, and depression, not just to gays, but to "nerds" and many other groups. Why do you think people go into school and blow people away? Because of bully assholes.

Gays just experience it in and out of school into adulthood because the cultural majority feels it's fun to target the homo and smear the queer.

[cs0564]

Against all groups "causes self-loathing, suicide, and depression, not just to gays, but to "nerds" and many other groups. Why do you think people go into school and blow people away? Because of bully assholes."

Right! Gays do not have the market on this! Wrong whoever it is being subjected to that.

As a person who was NOT bullied you would think I was insensitive to those that were. Contrer Mofar! I was the athlete (6'3, 220) who took up for all sorts of people that generally would not run in the same circles. I was also big enough to ward off those attacks. Bully's are just that! Men beat woman becasue they cannot beat men! Simple concept! Bottom dwelling scum suckers!
"

[Technocrat]

Against all groups "causes self-loathing, suicide, and depression, not just to gays, but to "nerds" and many other groups. Why do you think people go into school and blow people away? Because of bully assholes."

Right! Gays do not have the market on this! Wrong whoever it is being subjected to that.

As a person who was NOT bullied you would think I was insensitive to those that were. Contrer Mofar! I was the athlete (6'3, 220) who took up for all sorts of people that generally would not run in the same circles. I was also big enough to ward off those attacks. Bully's are just that! Men beat woman becasue they cannot beat men! Simple concept! Bottom dwelling scum suckers!
"



Indeed they don't have a monopoly on being hated. That's not the point I and some are making. The point we are making is that people do it to them, like they do it to others, simply because they exist.

Some denied this is true. They are wrong and have been proven wrong. That was entirely the point.

The second point was that it is immoral, which it clearly is.

The third point was that gays often are massively depressed, alcoholic, suicidal, because of the level of oppression. That's true. It's also true for many other oppressed, excessively bullied groups.

The person before you is just attempting to laugh off it all as if it:

A. Doesn't exist
B. It is deserved anyway, since they bring it on.

It's the logic of rapists vs the raped. Bitches bring it on by being "whores." Gays bring it on by being "faggots." If they would just stop being bitches and whores, or faggots, they wouldn't be attacked! But then again, they aren't attacked anyway!

The logic is just stupendously moronic in his argument.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Alonzo, why post two links that both got their data from the same survy, what is the point? The survey is located here:

http://www.nmha.org/whatdoesgaymean/WhatDoesGayMeanTeenSurvey.pdf

There are obvious flaws in this survey, first the methidology for the selection of the 760 12-17 year olds in not revealed. The incidence of the targets (how many blacks, whites, fat kids, gay kids, etc... each kid knew) isn't revaled, and the use of the word gay is less precise than the word homosexual, which should have been used.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Why do you think people go into school and blow people away? Because of bully assholes.


If true, and if gays are bullied out of proportion to others, then school shootings should be committed by a higher proportion of gays, right?

[Anti-Racism]

Up with sodomy!

[robthoven]

Up with sodomy!


LOL

What I don't quite understand is how conservatives can possibly be hurt by gay marriages or unions or what ever they should be called?

Billions of dollars and hours of air time are spent combating this "horrible" issue. But why?

When gays get married:
Are taxes higher for heteros?
Do heteros pay more for healthcare?
Does gas cost more?
Does a gallon of milk cost more?
Are heteros less capable husbands or wives?
Is there less food available for heteros and their families?

If one truly believes in the sanctity of marriage (which has only been around for 5000 of our 150,000 year history), then what others do should not be able to shake that conviction.

I don't believe that anyone has the right to legislate a minority morality for the rest of this country.

[Jaaaman]

I don't believe that anyone has the right to legislate a minority morality for the rest of this country.


I don't believe we are a minority...Â*Â*much of our country has grassroot value systems and our numbers are actually quite large.Â*Â*We may not reside in the big cities, but we are out there.Â*Â*And we are against the tide this country is attempting to turn to...Â*Â*gay marriage is completely wrong for our marriage institution.Â*Â*:(

[DHard3006]

What I don't quite understand is how conservatives can possibly be hurt by gay marriages or unions or what ever they should be called?Â*Â*
How does plural marriage harm marriage? It does not.
Homosexuality is a perversion, why should it be tolerated?

[robthoven]

Homosexuality is a perversion, why should it be tolerated?


That is ONE opinion on the matter. An opinion that, apparently, I'd have to pry from your cold dead fingers. :-). So I won't try.

About 1/3 of this country believes that assault weapons are "perverse", so
How about a little bi partisan agreement between us? You leave gay people alone and I won't pursue any gun control legislation. That way the constitutional rights of both sides will be upheld.

Your 2nd amendment right stating
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

and their 14th amendment right "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; ... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".

[cs0564]

I don't believe that anyone has the right to legislate a minority morality for the rest of this country.


A. What proof do you have that those not supporting your gay marriage belief are the minority.

B. Actually laws are passed by a majority of the citizens.

[underdawg]

Yes, laws are passed by the majority, but any law that is passed by the majority that infringes on the rights of the minority, according to the 16th amendment is technically invalid.

[DHard3006]

Â*Â*How about a little bi partisan agreement between us?Â*Â*You leave gay people alone and I won't pursue any gun control legislation.Â*Â*That way the constitutional rights of both sides will be upheld.
No where in the constitution will you find the word homosexual. No where in the constitution will you find a perversion is protected .

I can however find a right protected by the constitution that mentions the right to bear arms. Threats like that once again prove just how low people that defend the perversion of homosexual marriage let alone the perversion of homosexuality will go.

[AlonzoMourning23]

I don't believe that anyone has the right to legislate a minority morality for the rest of this country.


A. What proof do you have that those not supporting your gay marriage belief are the minority.

B. Actually laws are passed by a majority of the citizens.


I think he means the morality of a minority.

[cs0564]

Yes, laws are passed by the majority, but any law that is passed by the majority that infringes on the rights of the minority, according to the 16th amendment is technically invalid.


The infringement must be taken through our court system to prove the validity. Who say's that one law infringes while another doesnt?

[underdawg]

The constitution is the supreme law of the land. It supercedes all other laws made in this country. If a law is passed that violated the constitution, then it is the responsibility of the supreme court to toss that other law out.

[cs0564]

The constitution is the supreme law of the land.Â*Â*It supercedes all other laws made in this country. If a law is passed that violated the constitution, then it is the responsibility of the supreme court to toss that other law out.


oK? What law or laws have been overturned or passed that infringe on a gay's right to marry? From what I understand it is a State rights issue.

[robthoven]

No where in the constitution will you find the word homosexual. No where in the constitution will you find a perversion is protected .


You will not find the word heterosexual either. to requote "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;". It does not say "abridge the privileges or immunities of HETEROSEXUAL citizens". or "abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens THAT BELIEVE AS I DO" This means that all citizens have the right to same privileges and protections.


Threats like that once again prove just how low people that defend the perversion of homosexual marriage let alone the perversion of homosexuality will go.

I wasn't threatening anything, I was acknowledging your right and offering a compromise which is the basis for bi-partisan cooperation. Something that doesn't really exist in law making these days.


I think he means the morality of a minority.

Yes Thanks alonzomourning23,
59% of the country IS opposed to gay marriage, BUT only 10% believe the US constitution should be amended. And only 42% believe it should be prohibited by law in some way. http://pewforum.org/docs/index.php?DocID=39


From what I understand it is a State rights issue.

This is a valid point. States can and should decide for themselves on all issues except those that conflict with the US Constitution, and a ban on gay marriage at the state level conflicts. IMO.

[DHard3006]

to requote "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;".
Nowhere does the constitution protect a perversion.
I wasn't threatening anything, I was acknowledging your right and offering a compromise which is the basis for bi-partisan cooperation.Â*Â*Something that doesn't really exist in law making these days.
No leftist aka progressive that is how people that want to take away a right start out. You cannot compromise on a right. [edited] This is a valid point.Â*Â*States can and should decide for themselves on all issues except those that conflict with the US Constitution, and a ban on gay marriage at the state level conflicts.
This is a lame argument. If it were a state issue the southern states would still have race laws.

[NortheastCynic]

As a born and bred New Jerseyan, I'm happy to see my old homestate get this done, I'm not entirely sure I'm comfortable with the term "marriage" being used, but I don't think that that is all too important.Â*Â*As my favorite topic to discuss is the Constitution, I'd like to make a Constitutional argument for this.Â*Â*As has been previously brought up, the 14th Amendment of the Constitution states: No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Emphasis mine.Â*Â*By preventing gay people from joining in civil unions, the state government is in effect denying them the privileges or other citizens of the state [heterosexuals] and not affording homosexuals equal protection of the laws.Â*Â*I understand that this is an emotional/moral issue for many people and I hear you, but this is purely legal, and legally, the state of New Jersey is right, in my opinion.Â*Â*In addition, I do not believe that a majority vote against civil unions is a legitimate way to deny them.Â*Â*Again, this is an equal rights and Constitutional issue, no majority vote can take away civil/Constitutional rights, that's the whole purpose of the Constitution.Â*Â*The only way to legitimately deny someone civil union rights would be to amend the Constitution, not by referrendum.

Just as a point of order, before I'm called anti-democratic.Â*Â*I am anti-democratic.Â*Â*America isn't a democracy, it's a Constitutional Republic [perhaps Constituional Democratic Republic would be more accurate].Â*Â*The entire reasoning behind the Founders choosing that system of government is because they feared that a direct democracy would result in the majority destroying the rights of the minority.Â*Â*

-NC

[DHard3006]

The courts in other states have ruled perverted homosexuals are not being denied any rights because heterosexuals cannot marry some one of the same sex. This logic is to simple for perverted homosexuals or the defenders of the perversion of homosexuality to comprehend.

[NortheastCynic]

That isn't my point, my point is that heterosexuals are afforded the benefits of marriage while homosexuals are not, that is unequal treatment under the law.

-NC

[piratemonkey]

The courts in other states have ruled perverted homosexuals are not being denied any rights because heterosexuals cannot marry some one of the same sex. This logic is to simple for perverted homosexuals or the defenders of the perversion of homosexuality to comprehend.


What did the courts say about regular, non-perverted homosexuals?

[DHard3006]

This constant bs about married heterosexual couples getting something extra is just that bs. I have had to go to the hospital on many occasions and not once was I carded for ID to see if I was married or a relative of the person in the hospital. The few legal proceedings I have been at, such as reading of a will again no ID was required to prove I was family or a friend of the deceased.
At some of these legal proceedings people that were not family members were willed something. Was there a law violated by this? No.
All of this bs about married heterosexuals getting something extra is just that bs.

As pointed out heterosexuals cannot marry people of the same sex, so there is no discrimination by not allowing perverted homosexuals to marry.

[NortheastCynic]

It is a fact that married people get benefits that homosexuals cannot get, I don't know what else to say.

-NC

[underdawg]

Dhard, I doubt if you would be able to give permission to the doctors to provide medical service and to operate on them if they were not your wife or immediate family. A person under the law becomes legally next of kin once they get married. A gay couple would have to go through different legal channels to be considered next of kin, and then even that could be contested by lawyers if the injured or sick person's family wanted to persue it.

[cs0564]

The NJ legistature will more than likely write new legislation banning same sex marriage like all of the other states did this past election.

[cs0564]

Desegregation came from the courts too.Â*Â*I bet that pissed you off. :rolleyes:


Gay rights and black civil rights are not the same.Â*Â*Gays can form civl unions all they want.Â*Â*They have the same rights as any American.

Blacks truly had their civil rights stomped on and Thank the Lord that was changed. It should have never been an issue!

Just a little history lesson:

"Georgia Democrat Richard Russell offered the final arguments in opposition. Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (REPUBLICAN), who had enlisted the Republican votes that made cloture a realistic option, spoke for the proponents with his customary eloquence."

"At 9:51 on the morning of June 10, 1964, Senator Robert C. Byrd completed an address that he had begun 14 hours and 13 minutes earlier......." Byrd the former KKK memeber opposed this legislation.Â*Â*WHY?Â*Â*Could it be he's a racist and bigot?

[DHard3006]

Interesting how the leftist aka progressives cannot tell America just what the perverted homosexuals cannot do. Can you show just one thing perverted homosexuals cannot do that married heterosexuals can do?

[NortheastCynic]

Underdawg just gave an example in his last post.

-NC

[cs0564]

A gay couple would have to go through different legal channels to be considered next of kin, and then even that could be contested by lawyers if the injured or sick person's family wanted to persue it.


Living Will and Power of Attorney. I have them both on my spouse why can't that work for gays?

[NortheastCynic]

CS, are those all of the rights a married couple gets? Or are you trying to make a point. Sorry for the confusion, but can you elaborate?

-NC

[DHard3006]

Notice how the leftist aka progressives twist things. How many people wait until some one is in the hospital before they get their legal papers in order?
How many heterosexuals wait to marry until some one is in the hospital?
This is all just perverted homosexuals lies to an agenda.

The leftist aka progressives have not given one fact that perverted homosexuals are denied any thing.

[cs0564]

CS, are those all of the rights a married couple gets?Â*Â*Or are you trying to make a point.Â*Â*Sorry for the confusion, but can you elaborate?

-NC



As I have said multiple times I have no problem with gays forming civil unions. I just believe marriage is defined using 1 male and 1 female. Now that there are so many states banning gay marriage (recent election to start), I think if gays are worried about rights they need to get a POA and a will drawn up. I am the POA (including medical) for my wifes grandmother. I am also the executor of her will. Yet, I am not blood kin. My wife is 2nd if something was to happen to me. When my wifes GM passes it may cause issues, but since they will have no legs to stand on (as she is in her right mind and has been)they will not be able to contest it. All I am saying is that if anyone in a "Stable" relationship wants to join forces with each other than they should get their act together.

Also, traditional marriage itself is on the decline. More heterosexuals live together than are married. They should also get tehir act together.

[NortheastCynic]

No, DHard, we the liberals aka progressives have presented fact, you aka Dhard, have just decided to ignore it aka cover your ears and yell "la la la la la, I can't hear you."Â*Â*It is a fact that homosexuals do not have the guarenteed next of kin rights tha everyone else aka heterosexuals do.Â*Â*Here are facts from the Vermont aka another state with civil unions government website outlining the legal benefit homsexuals receive from civil unions that other states are denying them

6.Â*Â*What are the legal consequences of a civil union?

Parties to a civil union are given all the same benefits, protections and responsibilities under Vermont law, whether they derive from statute, administrative or court rule, policy, common law or any other source of civil law, as are granted to spouses in a marriage. These include:

Mutual financial support. Parties to a civil union shall be responsible for the support of one another to the same degree and in the same manner as prescribed under law for married persons.
Domestic relations law. The law of domestic relations, including annulment, separation and divorce, child custody and support, and property division and maintenance, adoption, and spouse abuse shall apply to parties to a civil union.
Laws regarding child custody and support. The rights of parties to a civil union, with respect to a child who either has become a natural parent to during the term of the civil union, shall be the same as those of a married couple, with respect to a child who either spouse has become the natural parent to during the marriage.
Property law and laws relating to decedents estates and probate. The laws relating to title, tenure, descent and distribution, intestate succession, waiver of will, survivorship, or other incidents of the acquisition, ownership, or transfer, inter vivos or at death, of real or personal property, including eligibility to hold real and personal property as tenants by the entirety (parties to a civil union meet the common law unity of person qualification for purposes of a tenancy by the entirety); probate law and procedure, including non-probate transfer apply to parties to a civil union.
Tort law. The laws relating causes of action related to or dependent upon spousal status, including an action for wrongful death, emotional distress, loss of consortium, dramshop, or other torts or actions under contracts reciting, related to, or dependent upon spousal status apply to parties to a civil union.
Tax laws and public assistance.Â*Â*The laws relating toÂ*Â*taxes imposed by the state or a municipality other than estate taxes; to public assistance benefits under state law; the homestead rights of a surviving spouse under 27 V.S.A. § 105 and homestead property tax allowance under 32 V.S.A. § 6062 apply to parties to a civil union.
Spousal benefits. The laws relating to group insurance for state employees under 3 V.S.A. § 631, and continuing care contracts under 8 V.S.A. § 8005; victim's compensation rights under 13 V.S.A. § 5351; workers' compensation benefits; state pay for military service under 20 V.S.A. § 1544; and family leave benefits under 21 V.S.A. chapter 5, subchapter 4A apply to parties to a civil union.
Right to make medical decisions and to take family leave.Â*Â*Laws relating to emergency and non-emergency medical care and treatment, hospital visitation and notification, including the Patient's Bill of Rights under 18 V.S.A. chapter 42 and the Nursing Home Residents' Bill of Rights under 33 V.S.A. chapter 73; laws relating to the making, revoking and objecting to anatomical gifts by others under 18 V.S.A. § 5240; terminal care documents under 18 V.S.A. chapter 111, and durable power of attorney for health care execution and revocation under 14 V.S.A. chapter 121, subchapter 2 apply to parties to a civil union.
Other laws that may apply to parties to a civil union
prohibitions against discrimination based upon marital status;
laws relating to immunity from compelled testimony and the marital communication privilege;
the definition of family farmer under 10 V.S.A. § 272;
application for absentee ballot under 17 V.S.A. § 2532;
family landowner rights to fish and hunt under 10 V.S.A. § 4253;
legal requirements for assignment of wages under 8 V.S.A. § 2235; and
affirmance of relationship under 15 V.S.A. § 7.
So so much for they aren't being deprived of rights.Â*Â*Above is a list of rights being deprived aka gays aren't equal under law which is a violation of the law of the land aka the Constitution.

CS, I get you and we're in complete agreement, religous/traditional marriage should be reserved for men and women, but I'm glad that we agree that gays should have equal rights.

-NC

[DHard3006]

Again we get the lies from the leftist aka progressives about perverted homosexuals being denied something. Every thing the leftist aka progressives are crying about can be done by a lawyer. Takes about as much time as getting a marriage license.

[NortheastCynic]

DHard, you've just demonstrated aka shown that you are willing aka fine with dismissing aka ignoring FACTS because they don't confirm aka stregthen your argument aka rhetoric.Â*Â*If you aren't willing to accept aka acknowledge imperical evidence aka fact then why bother debating aka discussing at all? The FACTS I presented aka exhibited cannot be taken care of by a litigator aka lawyer, gays are denied those rights in most states because they are not given the same legal standing as heterosexuals, period aka end of sentence.

-NortheastCynic aka NC

[lily]

I have not only warned Dhard, but gave him a warning for making fun of and changing another posters name. He stopped. Please give him the same respect he gave you and not make fun of his posting style.

Thank you

[DHard3006]

Just see how leftist aka progressives are chanting lies. Every thing a married couple can do a single person can do. It just takes a legal document.

[NortheastCynic]

That's not what we're saying DHard [I'm getting tired of typing that]. What we are saying and what I said particularly is that gay people in states without civil unions are not afforded the same rights as straight ones...Notice how the word "single" was not used once in the sentence.

-NC

[cs0564]

Every thing a married couple can do a single person can do. It just takes a legal document.


I cannot believe I am trying to prove a point to you still, but here it goes:

Would you rent to a gay couple?

Would you accept into your family a gay child?

Would you patronize a gay store (like a conveinance store)?

Would you stop and help a gay person if they were broke down on the side of the road?

I do not believe that being gay is right, but I also do not believe that I can either force my beliefs on them or treat them any differently concerning my core values.

What say You?

[underdawg]

ca0564 wrote:

I do not believe that being gay is right, but I also do not believe that I can either force my beliefs on them or treat them any differently concerning my core values.


That is the coolest thing I have read in a long time. I wish more people felt as you do.

[DHard3006]

Not once did a defender of the perversion of homosexuality or a perverted homosexual produce one instance of a what they chant.
Every thing a heterosexual can do a perverted homosexual can do.

[NortheastCynic]

Another lie from DHard...What're we up to now, I lost count.Â*Â*Check out post #112, it has a whole list of things gays can't do.Â*Â*But that won't matter to you DHard, you ignore facts without giving them a second thought, and I doubt that you will even read post #112, you'll ignore it just like you did the first time.Â*Â*Then you'll post something like "Again these liberal aka progressives chant all this stuff about perverted homosexuals and their rights but theres no proof."Â*Â*Continue to live on your own plane of existance if you want, but just know that ignoring facts doesn't make them nonexistant.

-NC

[DHard3006]

The only people ignoring facts are the leftist aka progressives that defend the perversion of homosexuality and perverted homosexuals.
Perverted homosexuals can do anything heterosexuals do. It just takes some legal paperwork. The same thing heterosexuals must do. Funny how leftist aka progressives that defend the perversion of homosexuality and perverted homosexuals over look this simple fact.

[NortheastCynic]

Thank you for proving my point.

I don't suppose you have any evidence supporting what you're saying?

In the off chance that you do, it is still irrelevant. You said it in your post yourself.

Perverted homosexuals can do anything hetersexuals do. It just takes some legal paperwork
If it takes legal paperwork for homosexuals to do the same things that heterosexuals can do without paperwork it is BY DEFINITION unequal and therefore unConstitutional. Again, I appreciate you proving my point.

-NC

[DHard3006]

Again the chant about what? Nothing. What can heterosexuals with out the proper legal papers do that perverted homosexuals cannot do? Nothing.
Why is this so difficult for the leftist aka progressives that defend the perversion of homosexuality or perverted homosexuals to comprehend?

[NortheastCynic]

I'll repost post #112 for you because you're obviously to lazy to go back and read it.

Quote:
6.Â*Â*What are the legal consequences of a civil union?

Parties to a civil union are given all the same benefits, protections and responsibilities under Vermont law, whether they derive from statute, administrative or court rule, policy, common law or any other source of civil law, as are granted to spouses in a marriage. These include:

Mutual financial support. Parties to a civil union shall be responsible for the support of one another to the same degree and in the same manner as prescribed under law for married persons.
Domestic relations law. The law of domestic relations, including annulment, separation and divorce, child custody and support, and property division and maintenance, adoption, and spouse abuse shall apply to parties to a civil union.
Laws regarding child custody and support. The rights of parties to a civil union, with respect to a child who either has become a natural parent to during the term of the civil union, shall be the same as those of a married couple, with respect to a child who either spouse has become the natural parent to during the marriage.
Property law and laws relating to decedents estates and probate. The laws relating to title, tenure, descent and distribution, intestate succession, waiver of will, survivorship, or other incidents of the acquisition, ownership, or transfer, inter vivos or at death, of real or personal property, including eligibility to hold real and personal property as tenants by the entirety (parties to a civil union meet the common law unity of person qualification for purposes of a tenancy by the entirety); probate law and procedure, including non-probate transfer apply to parties to a civil union.
Tort law. The laws relating causes of action related to or dependent upon spousal status, including an action for wrongful death, emotional distress, loss of consortium, dramshop, or other torts or actions under contracts reciting, related to, or dependent upon spousal status apply to parties to a civil union.
Tax laws and public assistance.Â*Â*The laws relating toÂ*Â*taxes imposed by the state or a municipality other than estate taxes; to public assistance benefits under state law; the homestead rights of a surviving spouse under 27 V.S.A. § 105 and homestead property tax allowance under 32 V.S.A. § 6062 apply to parties to a civil union.
Spousal benefits. The laws relating to group insurance for state employees under 3 V.S.A. § 631, and continuing care contracts under 8 V.S.A. § 8005; victim's compensation rights under 13 V.S.A. § 5351; workers' compensation benefits; state pay for military service under 20 V.S.A. § 1544; and family leave benefits under 21 V.S.A. chapter 5, subchapter 4A apply to parties to a civil union.
Right to make medical decisions and to take family leave.Â*Â*Laws relating to emergency and non-emergency medical care and treatment, hospital visitation and notification, including the Patient's Bill of Rights under 18 V.S.A. chapter 42 and the Nursing Home Residents' Bill of Rights under 33 V.S.A. chapter 73; laws relating to the making, revoking and objecting to anatomical gifts by others under 18 V.S.A. § 5240; terminal care documents under 18 V.S.A. chapter 111, and durable power of attorney for health care execution and revocation under 14 V.S.A. chapter 121, subchapter 2 apply to parties to a civil union.
Other laws that may apply to parties to a civil union
prohibitions against discrimination based upon marital status;
laws relating to immunity from compelled testimony and the marital communication privilege;
the definition of family farmer under 10 V.S.A. § 272;
application for absentee ballot under 17 V.S.A. § 2532;
family landowner rights to fish and hunt under 10 V.S.A. § 4253;
legal requirements for assignment of wages under 8 V.S.A. § 2235; and
affirmance of relationship under 15 V.S.A. § 7.
This is a list full of benefits homosexuals cannot receive in states without civil unions, again.

I asked you to provide evidence to support your assertion that gays have the same rights as married homosexuals, you refused, proving that you have nothing to offer but hateful and illogical rhetoric, congratulations.

-NC

[DHard3006]

See how the leftist aka progressives that defend the perversion of homosexuality or the perverted homosexuals constantly chant bs.
To be able to do what heterosexuals can do does not take a civil union or marriage.

[NortheastCynic]

PROVE IT! You probably can't, because it isn't true, I have documented evidence from the state government of Vermont that proves it untrue, sorry DHard, the leftists aka progressives got the better of you.

-NC

[Elrathin]

To be able to do what heterosexuals can do does not take a civil union or marriage.


Then prove him wrong SHOW, with evidence, that you can do the things he described. Show it with evidence, not just spout "leftists aka progressives <insert dumb comment here>" nonsense.

[DHard3006]

Again we get the leftist aka progressives that defend the perversion of homosexuality or the ....... chant bs. I guess the leftist aka progressives that defend the perversion of homosexuality or the .... have never seen a will or other legal document that prescribes just what will happen if you die.

Just childish rantings from leftist aka progressives that defend the perversion of homosexuality or the..... that defend gridlock.
ROTFLMFAO......................................... .....

edited for personal attacks

[NortheastCynic]

Just childish rantings from leftist aka progressives that defend the perversion of homosexuality or the perverted homosexuals that defend gridlock.So wait, you read my signature, but not my posts...What would I say if I was a self-righteous weak debater here...oh yeah...ROTFLMAO! And calling me gay is the dumbest thing you've done yet, and that, DHard, is truly saying something.

Once again you can't back up your rhetoric with facts, once again you make yourself look foolish, once again you prove yourself wrong. To quote Elrathin "Thanks for playing DHard, you lose again.":D

-NC

[DHard3006]

Again the leftist aka progressives that defend the perversion of homosexuality or the perverted homosexuals just chant bs.
TheÂ*Â*leftist aka progressives that defend the perversion of homosexuality or the perverted homosexuals cannot prove one thing that perverted homosexuals cannot do that heterosexuals do.
This is just leftist aka progressives that defend the perversion of homosexuality or the perverted homosexuals chant to get something that heterosexuals cannot do.

[Elrathin]

Again we get the leftist aka progressives that defend the perversion of homosexuality or the perverted homosexuals chant bs. I guess the leftist aka progressives that defend the perversion of homosexuality or the perverted homosexualsÂ*Â*have never seen a will or other legal document that prescribes just what will happen if you die.

Just childish rantings from leftist aka progressives that defend the perversion of homosexuality or the perverted homosexuals that defend gridlock.
ROTFLMFAO......................................... .....



And here we see Dhard cannot come up with proof, so he just uses rhetoric because he can't prove with evidence that what NC was saying is incorrect.

Lost again didn't you?

[NortheastCynic]

Again the leftist aka progressives that defend the perversion of homosexuality or the perverted homosexuals just chant bs.
The leftist aka progressives that defend the perversion of homosexuality or the perverted homosexuals cannot prove one thing that perverted homosexuals cannot do that heterosexuals do.
This is just leftist aka progressives that defend the perversion of homosexuality or the perverted homosexuals chant to get something that heterosexuals cannot do. I've posted proof twice, you're ignoring it like a two year old. I pity you.

-NC

[DHard3006]

Again the leftist aka progressives that defend the perversion of homosexuality or the perverted homosexuals lack the ability to comprehend that it does not take marriage or civil unions to do what heterosexuals do.

[Elrathin]

Again the leftist aka progressives that defend the perversion of homosexuality or the perverted homosexuals lack the ability to comprehend that it does not take marriage or civil unions to do what heterosexuals do.


Then prove what NC said is wrong point by point with evidence.Â*Â*He brought the proof, you brought the rhetoric. Lost again didn't you?

[NortheastCynic]

And again DHard you've ignored fact and have failed to provide any of your own. Sorry, you aren't even debating any more, you're crying over spilled milk. Don't worry about it, we're all proven wrong in a public arena in our lives.

-NC

[DHard3006]

Again the leftist aka progressives that defend the perversion of homosexuality or the perverted homosexuals just chant bs about nothing. There is no law that prevents perverted homosexuals from doing what heterosexuals can do.

[NortheastCynic]

I've shown laws, you've ignored them, stop lying, if you can.

-NC

[Elrathin]

Again the leftist aka progressives that defend the perversion of homosexuality or the perverted homosexuals just chant bs about nothing. There is no law that prevents perverted homosexuals from doing what heterosexuals can do.


There is proof and it was shown, you won't refute it with evidence, just rhetoric. This is proven fact for you Dhard. You lost again didn't you?

[DHard3006]

Again the leftist aka progressives that defend the perversion of homosexuality or the perverted homosexuals just chant bs that they cannot prove.

[Elrathin]

Again the leftist aka progressives that defend the perversion of homosexuality or the perverted homosexuals just chant bs that they cannot prove.


As usual, no debate, just rhetoric.Â*Â*Evidence was shown to you and you can't refute it, just spout of rhetoric.Â*Â*But we expected this.

[DHard3006]

TheÂ*Â*leftist aka progressives that defend the perversion of homosexuality or the perverted homosexuals cannot prove one thing that perverted homosexuals cannot do that heterosexuals can do.
What do the leftist aka progressives that defend the perversion of homosexuality or the perverted homosexuals do? As usual they disrupt the post to once again prevent people from speaking out against the leftist aka progressives that defend the perversion of homosexuality or the perverted homosexuals.

It is a common practice now in colleges around America to have leftist aka progressives that do not like a guest speaker attempt to disrupt this speaker. Yet even another right the leftist aka progressives do not like. That there first one.

[Elrathin]

TheÂ*Â*leftist aka progressives that defend the perversion of homosexuality or the perverted homosexuals cannot prove one thing that perverted homosexuals cannot do that heterosexuals can do.
What do the leftist aka progressives that defend the perversion of homosexuality or the perverted homosexuals do? As usual they disrupt the post to once again prevent people from speaking out against the leftist aka progressives that defend the perversion of homosexuality or the perverted homosexuals.

More rhetoric, nothing new, you were proven wrong and show it since you can't refute the evidence. You lost again.


It is a common practice now in colleges around America to have leftist aka progressives that do not like a guest speaker attempt to disrupt this speaker. Yet even another right the leftist aka progressives do not like. That there first one.


Again, offtopic, this has nothing to do with this thread. This is why you lost again.

[DHard3006]

Again the leftist aka progressives that defend the perversion of homosexuality or the perverted homosexuals cannot prove anything.
There are no laws that prevent perverted homosexuals from doing the same thing that heterosexuals do.

[Elrathin]

Again the leftist aka progressives that defend the perversion of homosexuality or the perverted homosexuals cannot prove anything.
There are no laws that prevent perverted homosexuals from doing the same thing that heterosexuals do.



Wow a repeat Cut and paste from your previous replys. Weren't you warned about doing that Dhard? Refute the evidence without the rhetoric.

[DHard3006]

See people, the leftist aka progressives that defend the perversion of homosexuality or perverted homosexuals cannot produce one law that prevents a perverted homosexual from doing what heterosexuals do.
All of these lies from liars about civil unions are just that lies.

Another perfect example of leftist aka progressives that defend the perversion of homosexuality they cannot win an argument so the leftist aka progressives that defend the perversion of homosexuality cry to the mods and attempt to get people banned. All these leftist aka progressives that defend the perversion of homosexuality want to do is allow their side to be heard.

Gee one leftist aka progressives even threatened me and the mods did nothing to him.

Makes you wonder if these leftist aka progressives that defend the perversion of homosexuality play fair.

[NortheastCynic]

See DH, NOW I'm chanting...Still no proof [clap clap...clap clap clap] Still no proof [clap clap...clap clap clap]

I'm waiting, stop lying by saying we have no proof, prove to us that you have any integrity and respond to the Vermont laws that I've posted.

-NC

[DHard3006]

Again leftist aka progressives that defend the perversion of homosexuality liar you have not produce anything.
There is no law that prevents perverted homosexuals from doing what heterosexual can do. That is called discrimination leftist aka progressives that defend the perversion of homosexuality!

[NortheastCynic]

:) DHard, I want you to say it, come on, say it.

Ready, if this is what you believe just go out and say it, don't be scared: NortheastCynic, you have not posted an entire post of facts from the Vermont Secretary of State website.

Go 'head say it, let's see just how delusional you are.

-NC

[Elrathin]

Again leftist aka progressives that defend the perversion of homosexuality liar you have not produce anything.
There is no law that prevents perverted homosexuals from doing what heterosexual can do. That is called discrimination leftist aka progressives that defend the perversion of homosexuality!


I'm almost thinking Dhard is a googlebot or somthing, he just continues to repeat the same cut and paste reply over and over again. Nice rhetoric, but of no debate value whatsoever.

Keep dancing Dhard :D

[DHard3006]

The leftist aka progressives that defend the perversion of homosexuality do nothing but post lies. There are no laws that prevent perverted homosexuals from doing what heterosexuals do.

[NortheastCynic]

So that's a yes. Ladies and Gentlemen, boys and girls, children of all ages...I give you DHard3006, a man who lives in another dimension. A man who has TWICE ignored legal facts that show what rights civil unions afford to gays and still cannot use basic logic to come to the conclusion that if civil unions give gays those rights then they DIDN'T have them before the union. Don't feed the animals kids, and keep a sharp eye out for leftists aka progressives.

-NC

[Elrathin]

The leftist aka progressives that defend the perversion of homosexuality do nothing but post lies. There are no laws that prevent perverted homosexuals from doing what heterosexuals do.



The same cut and past job Dhard always does. No debate, ignores the evidence, and posts rhetoric over and over again.

[DHard3006]

More lies from a leftist aka progressive liar.

[Labrocca]

Woo hoo! Topic officially locked for being turned into a festival of redundancy! YEAH!