Gay marriage to be allowed in NJ

[Dakini]

Ah, still slowly catching up with the times. Better late than never though.

[New haven america]

Well, this is good news.

[Menassa]

This is great. Perfect for Chris Christie as well.

How so?

[Mkuki]

This is great. Perfect for Chris Christie as well.

How so?

For Chris Christie?

Well, assuming he doesn't try to fight the State Supreme Court's decision, or fight it seriously, he very well could tell his more conservative supporters that the NJSC forced this decision on him while telling his more liberal supporters that he won't (seriously) fight the NJSC's decision.

[Yankeesse]

And the claim that one must work for the benefit of the state and society before recieving rights and benefits is an unsubstantiated claim on your part, but that's not really the topic, is it?

It's common sense or should be, you get payment in return for you labor.

I.e. You receive benefits because actions you perform benefit other people.

Why should people expect privleges for nothing in return?

I am serious, since you claim that homosexuality and homosexual adoption is unnatural, how do you explain its presence in other animals?

Just because something happens doesn't make it natural, if you take the meaning of nature to mean literally any possible occurance in life then everything no matter how benevolent/malevolent common or uncommon is "natural" and then the word loses any practical meaning.

Obviously, it doesn't apply to human- scientific proof? Science, that is for intellectuals, we fascists do the deed and dive headlong out of the pan and into the fire.

Now who's using ad hominems while still failing to understand the differance between intellegence and intellectualism.

I don't care.

Of course you don't, you are a fascist, if you held women to be more than a nice pair of tits and a baby making machine, we would be surprised.

More ad hominem, my ability to hold wome in high regard is not dependant on me pretending that they are exactly the same as men.

Why? If it's nobodies business but their own? And why should anyone base their identity primarily on what sexual preferance they have?

They aren't basing their identity primarily on their sexual preference, they are expressing their identity as a homosexual,

Many do and even then why? Do you see a bunch of heterosexuals marching down the street chanting about how proud they are to be straight?

not expressing themselves primarily as a homosexual. There is a difference, but I suppose that is too intellectual as well.

Irl not so much i'd probably lose my job and be socially ostracised.

Oh woe is me the bigutree

No, you would lose your job because you are incompetant, not because you are a fascist.

More ad hominem, implying I am incompetant at my job.

What!?

Exactly, you shouldn't be speaking as a fascist here, by your own logic, because you are making you're 'primarily identifying yourself as a fascists' which is wrong.

Im not, I didn't bring up the fact that I'm a fascist, other people made the accusation (in a perjorative way I suspect) and Blasveck and I confirmed it.

I never brought that up as my reason for arguing agaisnt gay marriage.

They can do this without marriage.

Then ban all marriages. After all, if producing children is what you are looking for, letting men be 'douchebags' and ladies be 'sluts' would be the best way to get about it, rather than through marriage.

Actually it is shown statistically that Religious married couples have the highest amount of kids on average.

And also having a bunch of kids with no proper guidance or stable home would/is a disatrous thing for society.

And none of that has to do with being married and they do that without marriage.

But, it still fits your own criteria. Unless you are willing to retract it, you must then admit that so long as the homosexual couples are good citizen, they have the right to marry.

Let's quote you to hold you to your word:

And therefore [marriage] should be available to those who give utility to the institution and benefit society as a whole.

Not just anybody who just wants one, just cuz of muh rights.

Homosexuals can benefit society based on their actions, i never denied that, what I was saying is how does them getting married benefit society?

People talk about economic benefits on money spent on a wedding, but in the summary I linked to, it also explains the economic strains that marriage can have on society.

Do the benefits outweigh the cost?

[Menassa]

How so?

For Chris Christie?

Well, assuming he doesn't try to fight the State Supreme Court's decision, or fight it seriously, he very well could tell his more conservative reporters that the NJSC forced this decision on him while telling his more liberal supporters that he won't (seriously) fight the NJSC's decision.

Is he against gay marriage?

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

For Chris Christie?

Well, assuming he doesn't try to fight the State Supreme Court's decision, or fight it seriously, he very well could tell his more conservative reporters that the NJSC forced this decision on him while telling his more liberal supporters that he won't (seriously) fight the NJSC's decision.

Is he against gay marriage?

He's pro "getting re-elected without getting primaried beforehand".

[Mkuki]

For Chris Christie?

Well, assuming he doesn't try to fight the State Supreme Court's decision, or fight it seriously, he very well could tell his more conservative reporters that the NJSC forced this decision on him while telling his more liberal supporters that he won't (seriously) fight the NJSC's decision.

Is he against gay marriage?

It would seem so.

[Divair]

For Chris Christie?

Well, assuming he doesn't try to fight the State Supreme Court's decision, or fight it seriously, he very well could tell his more conservative reporters that the NJSC forced this decision on him while telling his more liberal supporters that he won't (seriously) fight the NJSC's decision.

Is he against gay marriage?

When it suits him.

[Menassa]

Is he against gay marriage?

It would seem so.

Homosexuality is not a sin; people are born that way. (Jun 2012)
Marriage is an institution between one man & one woman. (Jun 2012)

What? forgetting for a second in the first statement the latter has little to do with the former.

[Divair]

It would seem so.

Homosexuality is not a sin; people are born that way. (Jun 2012)
Marriage is an institution between one man & one woman. (Jun 2012)

What? forgetting for a second in the first statement the latter has little to do with the former.

Is he against gay marriage?

When it suits him.

[Mkuki]

It would seem so.

Homosexuality is not a sin; people are born that way. (Jun 2012)
Marriage is an institution between one man & one woman. (Jun 2012)

What? forgetting for a second in the first statement the latter has little to do with the former.

I don't understand what you're saying.

[Menassa]

What? forgetting for a second in the first statement the latter has little to do with the former.

I don't understand what you're saying.

What is his reason for saying people are born Homosexual yet they can't get married.

Does he believe they can get Civil unions?

[Mkuki]

I don't understand what you're saying.

What is his reason for saying people are born Homosexual yet they can't get married.

Does he believe they can get Civil unions?

Hell if I know. Chris Christie is going to end up running himself into the ground if he runs for President.

He supports leaving the decision up to New Jersey voters. However, he doesn't believe the governor should have made it New Jersey law.

[The Godly Nations]

Just because something happens doesn't make it natural, if you take the meaning of nature to mean literally any possible occurance in life then everything no matter how benevolent/malevolent common or uncommon is "natural" and then the word loses any practical meaning.

So, just because something occurs in nature, doesn't mean it is natural... you do realise that that is the very definition of 'natural' do you not?

Beside which, how can the terms 'benevolent' and 'malevolent' be applied to nature when, as many philosophers from Spinoza on, realise that these terms are only relative to the human subject, who applies it to what cause him pleasure (benevolent) or what causes him pain (malevolent).

Now who's using ad hominems while still failing to understand the differance between intellegence and intellectualism.

Of course there is no difference- it is in the very definition, if you want to dispute it, prove that every linguist, philologist, etc. are wrong and you are right.

Of course, if you want to use your bullshit specialised version, the my analogy is justified, as these dead, sterile, lifeless academians dare to think in theories and, in short, think at all, instead of being men of action, bravely advancing without thought. Want to point out where I am wrong in the interpretation of your definition of an intellectual?

More ad hominem, my ability to hold wome in high regard is not dependant on me pretending that they are exactly the same as men.

You have no ability to hold women in high regard, especially since you can't spell 'women' correctly.

Many do and even then why? Do you see a bunch of heterosexuals marching down the street chanting about how proud they are to be straight?

Do you see many heterosexuals being persecuting and continuing to be persecuted?

More ad hominem, implying I am incompetant at my job.

No, I am saying that if you are fired, it is not because you are openly fascists- it is because you are, in one way or another, incompetant.

Im not, I didn't bring up the fact that I'm a fascist, other people made the accusation (in a perjorative way I suspect) and Blasveck and I confirmed it.

No, but your user quote and your avatar is a clear indication of your open fascism. You did bring up the fact, you brought up that fact with having a picture of Il Duce marching hand in hand with a group of blackshirts, and the quote on intellectualism on the bottom.

I never brought that up as my reason for arguing agaisnt gay marriage.

It allows us to pinpoint where you are coming from, and the qualities that make your arguments so very bad.

Actually it is shown statistically that Religious married couples have the highest amount of kids on average.

Show the statistics.

And also having a bunch of kids with no proper guidance or stable home would/is a disatrous thing for society.

And yet, you fail to realise that the word proper is only relative as well, making it meaningless to this discussion.

And none of that has to do with being married and they do that without marriage.

Homosexuals can benefit society based on their actions, i never denied that, what I was saying is how does them getting married benefit society?

Not what you said, you said that people should only be allowed the right to marry when they have benefitted society.

Beside which, how does a heterosexual marriage benefit society? Certainly it can't be solely children, as one can give homosexual couples the right to adopt, and thus raise a child/children in a loving home.

Nor can it be the generation of wealth, as there is no proof that heterosexual couples make more than homosexual couples.

People talk about economic benefits on money spent on a wedding, but in the summary I linked to, it also explains the economic strains that marriage can have on society.

What economic strain?

Do the benefits outweigh the cost?

Easy, a contented workforce tend to work more efficiently than an discontented one.

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

You can use the same justification for slavery, Chinese foot-binding (shivers), along with countless draconian laws.

What even constitutes 'tradition', anyway?

When its relevance to the present is such that it becomes culturally accepted as one.

[Ashmoria]

For Chris Christie?

Well, assuming he doesn't try to fight the State Supreme Court's decision, or fight it seriously, he very well could tell his more conservative reporters that the NJSC forced this decision on him while telling his more liberal supporters that he won't (seriously) fight the NJSC's decision.

Is he against gay marriage?

he said that if one of his kids came to him and told him they were gay he would hug them, tell them he still loves them, then say that dad thinks that marriage its between one man and one woman.

he is for civil unions. and for imagining saying really stupid things to his kids.

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

Is he against gay marriage?

he said that if one of his kids came to him and told him they were gay he would hug them, tell them he still loves them, then say that dad thinks that marriage its between one man and one woman.

he is for civil unions. and for imagining saying really stupid things to his kids.

Christie hugs gays?

Primary.

[SaintB]

What even constitutes 'tradition', anyway?

When its relevance to the present is such that it becomes culturally accepted as one.

Or a euphemism for something that's stupid beyond words but we are too lazy to fix it.