Gothamist: Implications from NJ's Gay Rights Ruling

AC

Fri, 27 Oct 2006 16:21:39 -0500

I would much rather if the questions raised in this argument were about bigamy than about bestiality. The rights I was intending to talk about were the rights given to married couples: visiting privelages in ambulances and hospitals, property rights after death, rights to jointly own property, and (less positively) the right not to be forced to testify against one another in court. Although I don't consider polygamy a right, this is a much more reasonable (and much less offensive) issue for debate than the idea that there will suddenly be a flood of people wanting to marry their livestock. The issue I take is that people seem to think that their union is better than someone else's based solely on their choice of partner.

anonymass

Fri, 27 Oct 2006 14:16:30 -0500

Um - your reasoning is fallacious, AC. Denying rights to a group that falls outside of the union referred to in the traditional definition of the word isn't bigotry necessarily. To qualify that statement, I don't have a horse in this race and don't really care what the outcome is. Though, here's an interesting quandary: what say you on a man who wishes to marry multiple wives? Or vice versa? Isn't that any American's right by your logic - the right to marry whomever you want? I mean, if you're going to bend the basic definition of marriage to include same-sex, it doesn't seem much more heinous to include bigamy. Note that I'm not equating the two, just using the same reasoning.

AC

Fri, 27 Oct 2006 10:33:18 -0500

This idea of "loosening" the definition of marriage leading to beastiality is the most ridiculous and offensive thing I've ever heard. People who hold this belief are essentially calling gay men and women less than human. This is an issue that has no real impact on straight men and women whatsoever. It's about denying a subset of Americans their rights. If you support denying them these rights you are a bigot, regardless of your reasoning.

JT

Fri, 27 Oct 2006 09:02:58 -0500

The right-wing of the Republican party in other states and nationally must be loving this -- just in time to rouse the base for the midterm elections and distract attention from major polical crises!

Dude

Fri, 27 Oct 2006 08:07:47 -0500

Ooo, Almighty..please spare us, your ignorant subjects, from your wrath! I will sacrifice my goat to you instead of marrying it..

iggy

Thu, 26 Oct 2006 21:57:36 -0500

conservatives must be frothing at the mouth because the law was actually followed!!

The Almighty Creator of Heaven and Earth and the Endless Stars which Pervade the Universe

Thu, 26 Oct 2006 20:48:57 -0500

"Marriage" is a term that traditionally refers to the union between a man and a woman. That's the way I Created it. Now homosexuals (ohhh, He used the H-word!) want to expand that interpretation to include same-sex unions. Well, excuse you Me. Sorry, but what then will stop the bestiality lovers from marrying their horses and ponies and sheep eventually?. Because THEY have their rights too, correcto?. No sillies; I don't mean the Rights I gave you guys. I mean the funny little rights you people made-up when you couldn't deal with my basic Top Ten List. You guys get your crap together now 'cause I'm starting to think "locusts" and "pestilence" here. Why do you think I wiped-out the Greeks?.