Marriage IS too important to be left to private decisions!! Where would this country be if institutions like marriage were left to private decisions?!?! I believe, strongly, much much worse than it is now. And its pretty bad in my opinion, morally. But I have the freedom to say that, don't I?

Economic issues matter and marriage is an economic issue. Studies show that married people are slightly healthier (less costs) and wealthier (pay more taxes) than their single counterparts and this is true for gay people as well. Therefore, it is in the state's best economic interest to grant marriage equality. This is because there are thousands of rights and responsibilities that come with the legal contract of marriage (yes, marriage is a legal contract).

Compare and contrast; one of my high school english teachers drilled that into my head. 
Compare and contrast: Slave rights and gay rights; the contrasts are easy, the comparisons are profound. Slaves could not get legally married either. They could not create and sign contracts, and what is marriage mostly (legally speaking) but a huge contract with thousands of rights and responsibilities.
 Navanethem Pillay, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights spoke there last year saying, "That just like apartheid laws that criminalized sexual relations between different races, laws against homosexuality are increasingly becoming recognized as anachronistic and inconsistent both with international law and with traditional values of dignity, inclusion, and respect for all."
 Apartheid: A system of laws applied to one category of citizens in order to isolate them and keep them from having privileges and opportunities given to all others.
 Stop gay apartheid.

Too bad you slept through the English section on false analogy.

Slaves were property and had no legal standing to begin with. Therefore they had no rights whatsoever! Comparing them with citizens of a "gay' persuasion is false.

Also, your apartheid example holds no water. Anyone who has been married long enough will tell you, sex has very little to do with marriage.

I could care less about gay marriage. What annoys me are these false analogies and the decline of our educational system that it proves.

HUGE differences between gays and blacks: Blacks are obviously identifiable. Gays are not. Blacks were held as property. Gays have never been similarly posessed as property.

Fact is, all Americans have the equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Gays say that they love differently, but gov't isn't in the business to dictate love; thus people can love anyone they want. But marriage is another thing.

Marriage is between one man and one woman. Anything else is not, by definition, marriage.

"We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work!"
- FDR's Treasure Secretary, Henry Morgenthau, in 1939, on 8 years of New Deal spending as an attempt to end the Great Depression.

Once again you miss the point. The comparison between the history of the African American struggle and the struggle for homosexuals is separate but equal. While homosexuals in this nation have not been kept in bondage as property, they are indeed treated as second class citizens. Because they love a member of the same sex, they are not able to receive the same protection of their relationship as heterosexuals are. They cannot change who they are anymore than you can. I agree with you however, govt shouldnt be in the business of "love." Therefor marriage should be made a colloquialism. If you decide to call your civil union a marriage so be it, but if gays are not permitted to marry as heterosexuals are than in order to provide equal protection under the law, all unions between two people need to be defined as civil unions.

Civil unions allow for heterosexuals (over 62y)to participate. Thus, it avoids the separate but equal status. Joe and myself disputed the slavery analogy and not the the civil rights one. And as far as I can determine, marriage has never been a right - only a civil convenience offered by the state. If it was a right, a license wouldn't have to issued.

There is indeed a right to equal protection under the law. Thus it would be illegal to only make African Americans get a drivers license, but not whites etc...a Domestic partnership agreement is not the same as a homosexual civil union, furthermore lets suppose the I didnt get married (many moons ago). But was currently in a long-term relationship with a woman and wanted to file for a civil union but was denied that right simply because we are heterosexual. Why would I be denied the same privileges as homosexuals simply because I am heterosexual? When you turn the argument over its head it sounds silly doesnt it?

"Marriage is a sacred institution, so sacred, that it must be put up for a vote", I disagree with this statement on two points. First of all, with 50% of all first, (67% of second and 74% of third) heterosexual marriages ending in divorce. It's quite obvious these people have little respect for the "Sanctity of Marriage" themselves. Marriage has been utterly tarnished, with no help what so ever from same-gender couples. In the five years same-gender marriage has become legal, I doubt the rate of same-gender divorces is even close to these statistics.

Secondly, the equal rights of law abiding tax paying citizens should not be determined by a majority vote. Minorities rights must be protected by the equal protection under the law clause of our U.S. Constitution and/or Bill of Rights. It's the responsibility of our courts and legislators to ensure each citizen their equal rights. I need not remind you, most base their opposition to same-gender marriage solely on their religious beliefs. In my opinion this violates the principle of Separation of Church and State and would enshrine a particular religious groups beliefs into our countries or states constitutions. I don't believe the intent our forefathers, was to allow religion to dictate laws on all others, who may not share their beliefs.

Society moves forward and attitudes change, as it should be. Same-gender marriage will one day become a non-issue. I only hope my life partner of 30 years and I will live to see the day we can legally married in our home state. Polls show a growing number of people are concluding denying same-gender the 1138 benefits, protections and rights they receive, is not what our great country is all about.

1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage

If you're for GAY MARRIAGE YOUR FOR POLYGAMY.
Just remember this America.
Consenting adults.

Regardless of the human nature to seek lifelong partnership, polygamy is as it is almost unanimously understood allows for men to have multiple spouses, it denies equal rights to women. It also conototates that gays are somehow leading the nation astray from all sense of a moral foundation and honest and sincere commitment to one's partner...being gay is not immoral, gay marriage is not a natural segway into polygamy, bestiality, pedophilia, or incest as nearly all conservatives seem to think. Furthermore, it is always ignored that polygamy is denied to evryone regardless of sexual orientaion, it is illegal for a man to have multiple wives, domestic partners, or husbands as it is for a woman, to have multiple husbands, wives, or domestic partners. We are all collectivly denied the ability to marry mulitple people thus we are all aforded the same rights under the equal protection clause because all Americans are subject to the same law. the entire idea bastardizes the argument and is nothing but pure hyperbole and a continuation of the national GOP to keep Americans afraid of something new, and afraid of progress for no good reason.

For those of you claiming homosexuality is a "lifestyle", that is a false and ignorant statement. Homosexuality is not a choice. Just like you don't choose the color of your skin, you cannot choose whom you are sexually attracted to. If you can, sorry, but you are not heterosexual, you are bi-sexual. Virtually all major psychological and medical experts agree that sexual orientation is NOT a choice. Most gay people will tell you its not a choice. Common sense will tell you its not a choice. While science is relatively new to studying homosexuality, studies tend to indicate that its biological.

hxxp://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/03/differential-brain-activation.pdf
hxxp://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html
Gay, Straight Men's Brain Responses Differ
hxxp://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155990,00.html
hxxp://www.livescience.com/health/060224_gay_genes.html
hxxp://www.springerlink.com/content/w27453600k586276/
hxxp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/06/16/172/

There is overwhelming scientific evidence that homosexuality is not a choice.

And it should also be noted that:
"It is worth noting that many medical and scientific organisations do believe it is impossible to change a person's sexual orientation and this is displayed in a statement by American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers, and National Education Association."

But we don't need scientific evidence for this.

I shall ask you this. Are you male? (If not, reverse the questions to the other gender) If so, Are you sexually attracted to other men? Would you be able to enjoy sex with a man? Do you get sexual urges with a man? Do men turn you on sexually and emotionally? Could you be happy with a man sexually for the rest of your life? Does male/male porn or male sexual situations turn you on and arouse you?

If you are heterosexual, the answer should be no. Otherwise, you might either be bi-sexual or homosexual, and might want to re-evaluate your sexuality. It is well known that a lot of homophobes deny their homosexuality by being aggressive towards it, until they finally accept it. Most people know this is not a choice, and it would be ignorant claiming it so. I know a few gay people who went to a straight club when they were figuring out their sexuality, where women were putting their naked bodies all over them, giving them naked lap dances, not once did the gay men get it up or aroused. But just the picture of a naked guy gets them up easily. Tell me thats choice. Also, why would a gay person, knowing that you will have a rough time in society, knowing that you cant get married unless you live in certain places, knowing that people will pick on you for it, knowing that your closest friends and families might completely turn their back on you, choose to be gay, if they could easily be satisfied by the opposite sex? Because they can't. Simple logic there.

Yes, never let facts get in the way of a good liberal's argument.

Our society has embraced the liberals' moral relativism on numerous issues over the last four decades or so, and the results:  more crime, drugs and poverty; more abusive relationships; more abused children; more 'broken' homes; skyrocketing illegitimacy rates; tens of millions of aborted children; and more divorce and infidelity.

They have quite a list of 'accomplishments', and yet, fools still follow them.

Here is an inconvenient FACT - ALL sexual behavior is under a person's control - be it heterosexual or otherwise! 

Race - clearly is NOT under a person's control.  Over 70% of African Americans in California last year realized the stark difference, and a majority of those I'd bet are likely insulted and disgusted by the gay agenda's comparisons. 

But, again, never let facts get in the way of a good liberal's argument.

RightForNJ:

"Our society has embraced the liberals' moral relativism on numerous issues over the last four decades or so, and the results: more crime, drugs and poverty; more abusive relationships; more abused children; more 'broken' homes; skyrocketing illegitimacy rates; tens of millions of aborted children; and more divorce and infidelity."

You talk of facts, where's the proof. You made an assumption with no proof whatsoever. according to a November 4, 2004 New York Times article “the lowest divorce rates are largely in the blue states: the Northeast and the upper Midwest. And the state with the lowest divorce rate was Massachusetts, home to same-sex marriage. Kentucky, Mississippi and Arkansas, for example, voted overwhelmingly for constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage. But they had three of the highest divorce rates in 2003, based on figures from the Census Bureau and the National Center for Health Statistics. In 2003, the rate in Massachusetts was 5.7 divorces per 1,000 married people, compared with 10.8 in Kentucky, 11.1 in Mississippi and 12.7 in Arkansas. The Barna Group, a California organization that studies evangelical Christian trends, has produced two studies about divorce that found that born-again Christians were just as likely to divorce as those who are not born-again Christians. Also, we don't wanna bring your "icons", Mr Bush who was arrested with a DUI, Palin who's daughter had a out of wed kid, as a teen, Miss America who has half-nude pictures and fake boobs, and good old Barry in Washington D.C. being a 4 time married, ex-convict, tax-evading crack addict.

"ALL sexual behavior is under a person's control - be it heterosexual or otherwise! "

You leave out one important tidbit, that sexual behavior is determined by sexual attraction, which you don't have a choice on. You are confusing sex with sexual orientation.

"But, again, never let facts get in the way of a good liberal's argument.'

Fact's are supported by evidence. None of your arguments do that. Your half-truths and out-of-date arguments are the reason your side is ultimately going to lose. Notice your scare tactics that worked in 2004 no longer worked in 2008. Likewise, people will realized the ignorance, lies, and scare tactics your side relied on prop 8, which soon will no longer work.

In many of our most progressive cities crime is low (Seatle, Portland etc..), plus you ignore the fact that poverty, moreover crippling generation poverty causes crimes-I feel that its almost over kill to point out that the last 8 years of GOP control have added to this at an alarming rate. Crime is not caused by your so called liberal relativism it is the child of poor education and lack of opportunity, neither of which republicans seem to care about. As far as 70% of the African Americans you speak of, if they are "disgusted" and opposed to the idea of equal protection under the law for all all taxpaying and law abiding citizens that is unfortunate, but it is not evidence that you are correct. They two situations are comparible as it is still the "Seperate but equal" and equal protection argument. The Supreme Court has ruled that seperate (while in theory equal) but equal insitutions for different groups of people is illegal under our form of Government. Thus, to afford blacks the right to attend an all black school, even if it were a good school is illegal. By the same token to allow heterosexuals the right to marry, and not homosexuals the same right, despite civil unions, is the same old seperate but equal argument and is therefor illegal and against the constitution in principle and by the equal protection clause specifically. Furthermore, there is no "Gay Agenda" that is a conservative buzz word its a boogy man. If by agenda you mean they advocate for equal rights, and to educate about what it means to be homosexual (not a pedophile or sexual deviant) but a condition that is neither immoral or illegal, that is neither dangerous or perverted, but simply the condition whereby two women or two men find that their lives are enriched by having a partner of the same sex, then yes they have an agenda. Furthermore all interest groups have an agenda. So lets not pretend that you are playing with facts, your drawing a false conclusion on shotty material and are in actually against all scientific fact. Always make sure your facts are correct, and pay attention to your own advice.

Yes, all interest groups have an agenda. What the gay agenda should admit to is that they seek not equal rights, but to redefine the institution of marriage, which since the beginning of civilization has been between a man and a woman. Anyone who believes in the Bible can read for themselves what it says about all types of sexual behavior and relations there. In her heavily noted book (over 20 pgs of footnotes), Do-Gooders, columnist Mona Charen documents entensively the results of the redefinition of family life over the last four decades. The same-sex agenda is only the culmination of a fifty year crusade of failed liberalism. Just a sampling from the book: Fatherless boys are 2-3 times more likely to commit crimes resulting in jail time. While 57% of African American children who live with their mothers only are poor, only 15 % who live with their married parents are. The illegitimacy rates have risen from 2.3% of white families in 1960 to 25.8% in 1997, and from 23% of black families in 1960 to 69.2% in 1997. Children in single parent households experience more trouble in school, are more likely to repeat a grade, experience more health problems, are more likely to live in poverty, are more likely to be abused and neglected, are more likely to experience depression, and have higher rates of suicide. These are the consequences when 'adults' sacrifice their own Self-Interest regarding sexual behavior to the needs of their children and society at large. I defy anyone to deny that society's 'progress' since the sexual revolution has done anything but harm family life in general and children in particular. I guess that's why we spend so 'little' now on welfare, prisons and failed educational institutions. It's why our cities, run by liberal Democrats, by and large, are in shambles. I live in one - I witness it every day. To touch on some 'facts' pointed out by others: perhaps the reason why divorce rates are lower in blue states is because those residing there are less likely to marry in the first place. All individuals have equal rights under the law to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And, society no longer delves into people's bedrooms to see who they are having sex with, but it does make value judgements on types of behavior all the time, whenever it implements a law or regulation. I'd be careful before using the 'who people are attracted to' argument. Society still has some strict laws about certain people who act on some of those impulses. Did shadow really make Marion Barry a conservative icon? LMAO Need I mention John Edwards and how he cheated on his very ill wife? Regarding Bush and his DUI - Chappaquiddick, anyone? Yes, Palin's teen daughter had a child out of wedlock. It's unfortunate, but she has owned up to the mistake of her behavior, has taken responsibility and is now raising her child. What liberals/progressives fail to do is take responsibility for their actions and policies. Yes, being a liberal/progressive means never having to say you're sorry. It's hard to violate moral principles if you HAVE NONE. Conservatives tend to realize that, as humans, they are flawed beings. They own up to mistakes, accept consequences, and try to be better next time.

I think you are entitled to your opinion on this issue but I wanted to make very clear one point about SSM that people seem to be missing. There are other religions(some Christian) that actually support SSM. What gives you the right to take your religion and impose your beleifs on me or others in the public square? We have freedom of religion in this country but you should read your history book again specifically the establishment clause which the supreme court upheld. Govt shal not establish an official religion or give preference to one religion over another. The religious argument is silly and has no place in a govt discussion regarding a marriage licence. The creation of separate but equal civil unions can very easily be compared to the Civil rights movement of the 1960s. Would you want to be corraled into the intolorant religous bigot section of society with out the basic right of marriage if the tide was turned? of course not. How would you continue to breed intolerance then? Now just to comment on your last few sentances of your post today. The fact that you write that conservatives tend to realize they have flaws and own up to mistakes must mean that you don't count Bush & Co as part of the conservative movement. They would disagree with you there. And they seem to have abandoned all moral values when they tortured to get a justification for the Iraq war. I'm pretty sure that in your Bible it can be interpreted that torture is a big no-no.

I like how you 'recognize' that I'm entitled to my opinion, then launch into the usual liberal tirade about being intolerant. Try taking a look in the mirror.
Maybe you can pick up a history book for once and realize that this country was founded on Christian principles, whether you like it or not. You can deny something, but that doesn't mean it ceases to be.
For starters, read House Resolution 397, which is for recognition of 'America's Spritual Heritage Week', and outlines at least 75 different ways in which this country, while recognizing people's right to practice their own religions free from government intrusion, has espoused and was founded on Christian principles. At times, it funded the teachings of them it found them to be so important. Or, read the book "The 5,000 Year Leap" by W. Cleon Skousen, which outlines the 28 principles and fundamental beliefs, grounded in morality, faith and ethics, on which this country was founded, and how they brought more progress in 200 years than had been made in the previous 5,000 years of history. Libs like 'progress'. I'm sure you'd all enjoy it.
Anyone who knows anything about the Bible knows there can be cases for just war. I'm not going to argue the pros and cons of the war in Iraq, but I'm sure if any of you had the chance to save large numbers of people from certain death by making a few people uncomfortable for a while, I reckon you'd give it a try.
And as for the Bible's view on homosexuality, you probably wouldn't want to read the book of Leviticus.

You're a bigot plain and simple. Anyone who has one iota of education can see that. The Bible is not the constitution. Go live in the vatican if thats what you want. America is a free country and I don't have to listen to your christian dogma and you have no right to force me to in the public square. Christian principles are a far cry from what you are spouting. You and your ilk are the American Taliban as far as I am concerned. Corrupting the teachings of your own religion for political gain. Someone needs to stand up and say you are wrong.

You have just proven the old axiom that you can't win an argument with an ignorant man. You don't really want facts, you want fury. It's how your side fights. You have to, you have no facts. Pure emotion is your way to go. And, if it's how you like to live, you have every right to live with an angry state of mind. That said, have a nice day anyway!

You too wingnut! I don't live in an angry state of mind. But listening to you spout the Fundamentalist Christian argument to me is frustrating since it doesn't hold any validity in the public square. Christians dont' seem to get this that they do not own everyone and how they think and act. I am an atheist and a homosexual so stop infringing on my rights to be an American. I don't have to be a christian to live in this country. You seem to write the right wing talking points on gay marriage most likely from the crazy NOM website. You and Maggie Galagher will loose this battle.

I would never have guessed you were an atheist homosexual. I never said you didn't have the right to be an American, just to recognize that only because the country was founded on the principles on which is was, is the reason why. And, here's the actual text of your favorite establishment clause, as well as the all important rest of the 1st Amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." So, I have the right to practice my religion, even if you don't care for it; I have the right to speak - even if it is about religion; I have the right to write it down in a forum like this; I and other Christians have the right to peaceably assemble (Speaking of which, the 'No on 8' people weren't so peaceful in some of their assemblies after they lost in CA); and you have the right to petition the Government for a redress of your grievance. It doesn't mean you necessarily have the right to win that redress, but your side is being heard. Now if you will all kindly stop trying to shout us down when we state our case, we'll all get along much, much better.

Honestly I hope someday you will change your mind on this issue but for the time being I have bigger fish to fry. I am taking some of my own advice and chanelling my frustrations at people like you towards my legislators to get them to vote for equality. If we win SSM for NJ then in time the arguments against it will become as outdated and irrelevant as those that were made against inter-racial marriage.

Once again Novick takes a dive. Hey Joey, did you miss the November Ballot in California (one of those 'progressive' state) which over turned the judicial activism of the courts.

And if homosexuality is based on your genes, then it must be a recessive gene, otherwise we would a majority of homosexuals. Therefore, if it is a recessive gene and if homosexuals have the freedom that we do in our society to chose their mate, and if because they are not of the reproduction kind (without advanced medical help) they do not reproduce, then eventually they will breed themselves out of existence.

If we havn't breeded ourselves out of existance yet then I doubt it will ever happen since STRAIGHT people have been having gay children for centuries.

Go read some biology books once in a while before you make comments like this. Oh that's right your book doesn't believe in evolution so your argument doesn't hold any water.

I hope for the sake of the rest of us you chose not to reproduce. We already have enough ignorant rednecks running around NJ.

So much for civilized conversation Andy. I think there are plenty of recessive genes out there because throughout history the LIFESTYLE of homosexuals has been forced to be compromised for social politics. My point is, that with the increased awareness and acceptance of this LIFESTYLE then there will be less and less of the recessive gene.

I think you are the one in the need of the biology lesson. This is simple High School Biology - enough said.

And yes, I breed. I have lots of children. And this 'ignorant redeck' has a master's degree.

Go back to your LIFESTYLE. Cause that's what it is. You have a choice.

Community college gives out masters now? amazing progress we've made in these United States. I'd love for you to explain your 1980's viewpoint of being gay as a lifestyle a little further although its irrelavent to this discussion of marriage. How do you explain homosexuality in animals?(there are hundreds of documented cases) do they make a choice as well? If so that would imply that they are capable of rational thought. I don't think animals are making a choice but going on instincts. Just as you and I would go on instinct to decide who our mate will be. I take it you don't know many gay people and perhaps you should try meeting a few. They might tell you as well that its not a choice. If it is true that they are able to go from both male to female partners they are in fact bisexual. Yes they do exist too! horrors! Anita Bryant would be proud to have you at her side of bigots. And the discussion got far from civil once people like you went on a crusade to put us back in the closet. I for one am pissed off and time is on my side.

Mindless...............

So, you are comparing Gay and Lesbians to animals humping because they are horny. Many animals don't mate for life, only those that have the pact mentality.

I forgot they don't have animals where you are, but in the zoo.

I'm sorry I expected civility from you. I can tell that in fact the person here who is uncouth is you. Instead of giving facts or fight biology with biology, you attack the person. This is NO way to win an argument. In fact Andy and Blue you will only hurt your argument. I posed a point of view and instead you attacked.

Point of Fact: I count among some of my friends and acquaintances several gay and lesbian people.
Another Point of Fact: I never tried to get you to go BACK into the closet. That would be wrong. I look to defend tradition, not have it flipped on it's head. And I look for the truth in an argument. So, let's here your truth instead of your ad hominem attacks.

Question:
How would you explain those people who are bi-sexual?

You obviously didnt read my argument about animal biology. They use instinct to decide whom to mate with and if you ever took some time to visit the penguins in the NY zoo you'll see that this penguin pair chose to stay partnered together to raise an egg. They were both male. When presented with other options such as female only mates they chose not to mate and became depressed. My point here which you obviously missed was that homosexuality is not a choice. It is instinctual in all species. So you saying that its a choice would imply that you think that all manner of species other than humans make the same informed cognizant choices. I would love to hear how you arrived at the decision that homosexuality is a choice? Was it told to you by someone or do you have a personal homosexual experience to share? I'm not trying to be facetious here.

Now on your last paragraph, you say you didn't try to push gay people back in the closet, by saying that its a choice and that we are not entitled to the same joys and freedoms of society as you are that is exactly what you are doing whether intentional or not. I'm pretty sure if you took these views on homosexuality to your gay friends and actually spoke them in person your "friends" wouldn't agree with you. I for one would hope they would think twice about your friendship if they realized you would rather them stay in the shadows of society and be relagated to second class citizenship because you favor tradition so strongly.

I speak the truth because I can speak from the heart. It impacts me directly when you make statements filled with stereotypes and bigotry. You speak from the comfort of privilege and tradition. When you have to fight for something for the first time in your life I'll be interested to see how you change your perspective.

What I say. Why don't you just write this response, since you seem to want to make such broad ASSumptions. Not everyone is as close minded as you.

One of my friends who is a lesbian is the mother of 2 and was married for 12 years. I worked with her for several years. The idea that I have to say even this much about a relationship I have with a friend of mine is repugnant and a clear case of what is wrong with this dialogue. I have to have 'skin in the game' to have a point of view on this issue is an attempt to minimize my point of view. My point of view is as valuable or valueless as anyone elses is.

I'm sorry you feel that my point of view puts you back in the closet - however, that's your interpretation - and AT NO POINT DID I SAY YOU COULDN"T HAVE ANY JOB. You really should grab a copy of the constitution - I am entitled to hve my own opinion on this matter and say what I want. I do not appreciate you attempt to shut down a debate on a matter with caling someone a bigot.

I'm just a little tired of getting called a bigot because I have different views. I could easily turn around and call you a bigot for demanding of impinging on others religious beliefs. However, I can agree to disagree with you - because all we will end up doing is going back and forth with name calling. And YES you are entitled to your opnion as well - but you DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO CALL ME A BIGOT for mine.

I understand your argument, and completely disagree with you. If you look back at my original statement, you will please note that I said that homosexuals will breed themselves out because most are not having biological children (this would be the rule - not the exception due to economics of the science) And this is simple darwainian science.

Animals - just because you see penguins taking care of an egg for a season - this does not make the animal homosexual. You mis interpret the instict here. It's not to mate for life (as two individuals who wanted to be married for LIFE) it means that in order to keep their society together they do what is necessary. It's a reasoned choice on the most basic of levels. Thinking - NO, but the best way to survive. No different than when a large woman during prehistoric times would be the hunter because she could remain quiet during the hunt and then provide as much support to bring the kill back as the man next to her - IT's WHAT made sense. It's not instinct, it's a simple response to their environment.

Look at lions, or bears. Male lions do go with the pack until a certain point - this doesn't mean they're having sex together, in fact the NATURAL order is for to have sex with the opposite sex to procreate. Again - to make the point clear - the penguine example you gave is the EXCEPTION to the rule - NOT the rule. Otherwise, we would NOT have these animals anymore.

Please explain to me how marriage is a RIGHT, that is not equaled by what a civil union can do.

With your analogy towards Penguins, and bringing it around the animal kingdom - does this mean that the female animals of the pack are having sex together - or is there some type of female on female type of pack.

Don't bother answer, I'll do it for you. The answer is NO, because as per my original statement - they would have died off. The NATURAL INSTINCT is to PROCREATE. To have children and multiple. Naturally you cannot do that with two members of the same sex.

You need to stop generalizing that ALL people and ALL animals must follow the "Natural" order of things. There will always be exceptions. That is my point. But I'm obviously not going to win that argument with you so I'll try to get back to the article's original point.

Gay couples only want to protect one another under the same legal framework that you get to enjoy. Some who have children want the same custody rights that married couples enjoy. As I stated before, I don't plan to chose to be straight ever in my lifetime so I want the same right to protect my partner as you get to enjoy with your wife. End of story.

Again, what is different from Civil Unions. Do you NOT get the same protection, even more with a civil union, because legal standing is outlined very clearly, and precisely.

And I can understand why you shy away from the 'natural' order of things because it goes against your agenda.

And how is marriage a right?

Fine then renounce your marriage and call it a civil union. You don't get to tell me that I don't deserve to use marriage if you can as a birthright. This is 2009 Jim Crow was abolished a long time ago.

Your the exception, I and the billions of other humans are the rule. And again, there you go again, why is it you have to be derogatory in your comments. Live your lifestyle, but keep your hands off MY lifestyle.

I'm not imposing myself on you and your beliefs and ideals, it's you who is doing it to me.

Jim crow is exactly what you are doing to me and the rest of the gay population. We are not forcing you to accept anything. You can still enjoy your narrow world view because obviously you will never accept gays for what they are. Since you don't hold the keys to the kingdom its a moot point talking to you anymore. Thanks for making the past few days fun.

You cannot win the argument on ideals, so you name call. You cannot counter my arguments, you even concede my point in at least one area, but instead of admitting you have no strong case, you have to whine.

If we were in the same room together in a debate you would probably be yelling your point of view to shut me up. But since you don't have that luxury here, you run away. Typical Liberal.

I have also enjoyed the last couple of days at showing the holes in your argument.

see above

Wouldn't want to meet you in public ever. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be able to restrain myself from coming on to you. You must be the hottest macho man in NJ.

I'm sure most New Jerseyans are joining Novick's tossing and turning at night, agonizing over the fact that gay marriage is still not the law in the state.....NOT...

Civil unions are fine. There's no compelling reason to tear New Jersey apart by taking this any farther.

Just skimmed these posts and see the Jim Crow analogy. I'm sure that must thrill African Americans.....NOT.....

The struggle of African Americans for equality and justice really has no parallel in America's history. Four brutal centuries of slavery and compulsory segregation -- nothing compares.

If I'm the best you can get - then no wonder why you've choosen to be gay.

Jackk, separate but equal in 6 states just decided that separate does not mean equal under the law. NJ is only a matter of time before we get our rights and the rest of you will have to accept our lifest... oh wait thats right it won't impact you whatsoever. So since its not impacting you go find some other issue to be all righteous about.

Just VOTED last NOV to turn it down. And when put to a referrendum, many of the other states will do the same.

But newsflash. Those states (even NJ) that have a referrendum and okay it - fine by me. It's when the courts get involved and start telling individuals how to live their life.

Go live your life, but let the people of the STATES decided it - not any black robed statist.

Have an argument, convince your neighbor of your argument and continue on from there. Build a popular cause.

...after the Novermber election...if Corzine loses I would expect it to be a certainty given Democratic control of the legislature.