Discussion in 'The NF Café' started by That NOS Guy, Oct 25, 2006.
I'm gonna call the opposition's stance on this now:
Funny, my 2 "home" states are Mass and NJ, and they are the only 2 to approve this. Awesome, awesome news I am so glad to hear it.
I'm still waiting for the fire and brimstone to rain down upon Mass for allowing gay marriage at one point.
Anyway, the movement to the U.S. giving its homosexual citizens full rights is inevitable. I'm sure in 1906 equal rights for blacks seemed impossible as well but these days they have more rights then whites.
I'm all for gay rights on the basis that:
1.) Who gives a fuck what a person has sex with as long as it is between consenting adults or teenagers of similar age.
2.) It not only pisses off Christian extremists, but Muslim ones as well!
I always knew there was something funny about Jersey.
I see someone's living up to his display name. Pray tell why granting homosexuals rights when we long ago determined that such naturally occuring factors such as race should have no involvement in the ability to deny marriage rights?
Oh wait, that's right! Racism is bad but homophobia is alright.
That's great news.
Glad to see that at least two states are taking steps to put an end to the needless bias existing against this group.
Typical conservative christian republican homophobic response:
a) Oh noes! The gay agenda is spreading!
b) The country is going to the dogs.
c) We're legalizing immoral behaviour! More Oh noes!
d) The sacred institute of marriage is destroyed!
e) Baby Jesus is crying!
Good for New Jersey. Accepting gay marriage is inevitable progression into the 21st century, whether people like it or not. Nice to see some parts of America are finally catching up to the 'free' and 'progressive' image it boasts.
"Gay marriage!? Next thing you know, they'll wanna vote!" - Carter Pewtershmidt - Family Guy
Alright, my opinion: I don't live in New Jersey and some of my friends are gay anyway, so its all cool
Yay! That's so wonderful. What can be more perfect than Gay marriage and NJ getting more people to visit and not staying away because of all that bad publicity? This is a great turnout.
Have I ever not lived up to it?
Anyway, I don't really care. I just said there's something funny with Jersey.
If he's a baby, it's normal. Just check the diapers or feed him.
OK, joke over.
I'm not that excited nor offended by this news. Gay marriage has no real impact on my life, since I'm hetero. And exactly because it has no impact on my life, I don't feel it's wrong. Gays and heteros are humans, and should have the same rights. So it's ok in my opinion.
In response to those who have posted insults about the opposition:
Please show respect to those who disagree in the future. You will find that we are happy to do the same.
Cool statement from the court.
I'm not holding my breath for NJ to pass leglisature to this affect though. And even if they do, the federal government won't recognize it until the Supreme Court hears the case.
So it's a step in the right direction, but there's still a long way to go.
"Well, if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck...."
I should find it funny people advocating needless discrimination go off on the need for respect. It's not the lunatics taking over the asylum, it's the retards taking over the short bus.
I have no qualms with State sponsored Gay marriage. As an American citizen, I believe they are entitled to that right.
However, due to clear distinction between church and state and all the religious views that shun the act, I don't think the church should be forced to recognize gay marriage. The government can't make them due to the separation. The battle on the sanctity of gay marriage we have now is nothing compared to what it will be if the government forces churches to recognize it.
The government doesn't need religions to recognize civil rights (and has never pushed in that regard), furthermore there's never been any serious movement towards that from the gay rights movement either. That's certaintly an odd thesis you've cooked up.
I'd just like to point out, short of a handful of radical troublemakers, no one has every suggested that churches would have to perform or accept gay marriages. It's well within a church's right to refuse to marry two people that are not following the requirements of the faith.
Oh great gays getting the attention they want *rolls eyes*
Wonderful news. Any honest commentator who's seen the situation in countries like the Netherlands knows that gay marraige most certainly is NOT the end of the world. And even if it opens the door to polygamy, what's the big deal? They certainly aren't hurting anyone, and they're not making it harder for straight couples to get married, so what's the problem?
This does seem like a question best left to Democracy rather than Courts. That way the decision is made by the body politic, and not by a judge. Less bad feelings all around see.
Yes but they are looking for attention those idiot's but i'm not against gay marriage and since i'm a christian my self I belive that it is for god to decide it's his judgement it doesn't matter to me
O RLY? You discriminate against homosexuals for personal, religious reasons and you've admitted so in other threads. You show blatant disrespect to homosexuals, calling them 'wrong' and 'immoral' (besides saying you're 'only gay when you act on it' and that they 'lack control' and that homosexuality itself is just an action - all things you've said in previous threads, demonstrating you have never actually educated yourself on the subject, let along looked up the word 'homosexuality' in a dictionary). Please show respect to someone who says things like that? Puh-lease.
1920 - Oh great. Women getting the attention they want.
1865 - Oh great. Blacks getting the attention they want.
Gays are people too. They deserve to be recognised by the American government as American citizens and get the same rights that are being granted to gays across the pond.
Oh, please don't mistake my statements for indication of that occuring. It was just a general observation. I didn't mean to imply that was the current state of things.
As EvilMoogle said, the only people that would push that would be radicals. I was only giving what I personally believed the be the only disaster scenario that could come of this. Not a disaster in that gays would have chuch sanctified marriage, but in the the separation of church and state would be getting trodden upon. Sorry for the mispresentation of that, guys.
Because obviously the masses are better at intrepreting precendent and law right? Right?
Who were the ones protesting integration again? Certaintly not a bunch of guys in robes.
You're waiting for God? Well, no fire and brimstone here. I'll take his silence on the matter as a good thing then.
They're looking for attention? Do you listen to yourself, seriously? They're trying to win equal rights. "That MLK guy just wants attention."
protip: The gay rights movement is not Fred fucking Phelps.
gay marriage - no, civil unions - yes.
They had a right to complain but gays don't there not abused they can get any job they want and they still ask for it to be legal
Why is this again? Don't give me tripe about "holy unions".
protip: Marriages originated from political neccessity, not God's word.