My Congressman writes on Gay Marriage.

[NNadir]

“Importantly, equal treatment under the law leaves the religious aspect of marriage untouched, as it should. The U.S. and New Jersey Constitutions require the government to respect the separation of church and state, and this decision does so.

“Some argue that same sex marriage will damage the institution of marriage. I disagree.

“As history has shown repeatedly, institutions are strengthened when they treat all people equally. The U.S. military is not weaker because it accepts African Americans – though some said it would be. American colleges and universities are not weaker because they accept women – though some said they would be. Both of these institutions are stronger because they grant equal rights and privileges.

“Life commitments that are monogamous and mutually supportive have social, economic, and personal benefits. Allowing all people to enter into them strengthens the institution of marriage, it does not weaken it. Recognizing the legal rights associated with marriage regardless of the sexual orientation of the partners will not diminish in any way the number of people who enter into marriage, nor the satisfaction that those of us who are married find in our relationships.

Because I want to kiss him, I assume he is trying to make me as gay as Ted Haggard.

http://holt.house.gov/list/press/nj12_holt/102506.html

[radfringe]

1. if I want to kiss him

does that mean I'm "cured"? :)

[NNadir]

4. I need more information.

What is your sex? Are you trying to be cured of heterosexuality, homosexuality, polysexuality or asexuality.

[radfringe]

8. not trying to be cured of anyhing

except maybe fibramyalgia...

ennywhoo

me <--- dyke.. flannel shirts, jeans and work boots

[NNadir]

10. Well then you're cured.

I'm smoked and aged myself.

Me -> Fat ugly middle aged badly dressed heterosexual man married inexplicably to a beautiful woman and represented by a great congressman, Rush Holt!

[xchrom]

2. very cool!

[Maven]

3. K/R

[Ellis Wyatt]

5. it's difficult

I really hate the knee jerk reaction of some people who just dismiss anyone who disagrees with them as racist/bigoted/stupid, etc, so I always really try and understand the logic behind people who disagree with me on a subject.

Yet, for the life of me, I really can't understand how anyone can logically believe that gays should not have every right that I have in regards to "marriage" or "union" or whatever.

And I'm not talking the "separate but equal" doublespeak that you hear about marriage vs. civil union. I mean that my state and my country should recognize as complete equals, my wife and the partner of the guy whose office is next to me at work. There should be no legal difference between them, or the rights we all have as legally bound couples.

Some in my family oppose gay marriage, and I haven't even been able to get a clear answer out of them. Their two main points are so specious, it's laughable. 1) that's how marriage has always been defined, so why change it now. Right, like black being slaves, and women not being able to vote? Poor logic. 2) it's a slippery slope. If we let two men get married, next will be a man and a dog. Or 3 men and 8 women. Well, that's a huge leap. I don't see how moving it from being "two people of opposite sex" to "two people" will result in us as a society lurching toward Gommorah.

Without responding "because they are racist, biggoted, idiots" can someone please try and rationally explain why someone could possibly be against gay marriage? I'm really struggling and I just can't understand the logic at all.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

6. Culture is a difficult thing to change

I remember being taught in school that homosexuality was an illness, a perversion. In my family it was such a taboo that it was completely ignored. Never, never discussed. It's difficult to leave behind that level of indoctrination, and I guess a lot of folks just never get there. It will take some time, is my guess.

[FreeState]

7. Marriage is a contract, nothing more

1) that's how marriage has always been defined, so why change it now. Right, like black being slaves, and women not being able to vote? Poor logic. 2) it's a slippery slope. If we let two men get married, next will be a man and a dog. Or 3 men and 8 women. Well, that's a huge leap. I don't see how moving it from being "two people of opposite sex" to "two people" will result in us as a society lurching toward Gommorah.

We all know the above is an example of someone masking their true motives. Those are not logical answers, they are knee jerk answers people give when they have never thought about the gay marriage, they have only regurgitated what they have been told by someone (most likely clergy or someone who was influenced by some church). When you can get someone to get past those "pat" answers they will see there is no threat in equality.

Besides #1 is not even true. Marriage has never been what the religious right claims. It has never been one man and one woman marrying to produce children out of love. Thats what they claim it is, nothing more nothing less. They claim thats what it always has been. A quick google by a five year old would prove that marriage has never been that, maybe idealized as that in the last 100 years of time.

In reality marriage is a contract having nothing to do with love or children. If it was a religious ceremony as they claim the ceremony would not have "by the power vested in me by the state of ____" in the ceremony. Since when does a religion need the states power to preform a sacrament?

[kiahzero]

9. Your request is impossible to honor

There is no reason to be against marriage equality except for sexism.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

11. There's only one logical answer.

but apparently you don't want to hear it.