As of today, New Jersey is the third US state to permit same-sex civil unions with all the rights and responsibilities of marriage. All civil unions and marriages between homosexual couples obtained in other states or nations are now eligible for recognition as civil unions, and civil union licenses are granted to them automatically. New Jersey state Senator Loretta Weinberg, a prime sponsor of the law, calls this a "big, giant step forward". I call it a punch in the face. Wanna know why? It reinforces some negative ideas concerning same-sex couples and marriage. It reinforces the idea that gay people are somehow different from straight people, that the love between two men or two women is somehow different, that the union between them is somehow undeserving of being called a marriage. They have the same rights and responsibilities, but it's not called a marriage; it's called a civil union. They can't get married, but they can get civil unioned-- united, unionized, whatever the fuck the word might be. It's precisely the sort of injustice we did away with for blacks and other minorities about forty years ago, which we called "separate but equal". We did away with it because we had realized — but have since forgotten, apparently — that separate is not equal. Imagine a woman wants to go to a university and earn a diploma, but they refuse her one after she goes through all the required coursework and earns the necessary marks. The reason? Diplomas are for men. Why? Because traditionally, only men are educated. Understandably, women would fight to have their education recognized as being the same as men's. Now imagine that a man and a woman both go to a university and enroll in the same course program. They take the same courses, they get the same grades, and in the end the man receives a diploma for his hard work, while the woman receives a certificate, which is now equivalent to a diploma and which women can now receive. Both the diploma and the certificate mean the same thing and have the same benefits, but the woman cannot receive a diploma because it's only for men. Instead she's given a certificate. Why? If they both mean the same thing, then why does the woman only deserve a certificate? What's so different about her? What's so inferior about her? Why should you have a penis and testicles to get a diploma? What about the fact that she has breasts and a vagina makes her unworthy of a diploma? If both civil unions and marriages mean the same thing, why do gays only get to civil unionate, unionize, unionify? Why should the fact that both people in the couple have a penis, or both have a vagina, have any bearing on whether or not they receive a marriage license, on whether or not they are worthy of one? Some supporters of same-sex civil unions mean well. They see it as one step closer to marital equality. They're happy that New Jersey homosexuals can now have their love recognized by the government in some way. And I can see and understand their train of thought. But I wonder if they realize what this implies to the American people. To them, seeing gay couples being told they can have all the benefits of marriage but can't have their union called a marriage reinforces the widespread meme that gay people are inferior to straight people. Of course, because it's so subtle, the American people don't realize this, nor do they realize that this is effectively a step backwards, not forwards. I wonder if same-sex civil union supporters realize what this means to the people who don't support marital equality. To them, simply having the same rights and responsibilities that straight couples enjoy should be good enough for gays. To them, if gays keep asking for the ability to marry, then they're being ungrateful pricks. Just like they would consider the women who continue to push for diplomas for both sexes a bunch of ungrateful broads. I wonder if same-sex civil union supporters realize this is a punch in the faces of homosexuals everywhere, plain and simple.
Not in the US. The union between a man and a woman is called a marriage in all the legal texts and such, unless they specifically get a civil union or a domestic partnership or whatever. At least this is my understanding. I hope you're right. Well you go right ahead and think such silly things if you want to. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
That's exactly what I was thinking. If there is a church that will marry two men or two women then it's a "marriage" Right?
Hmm, they ARE different!! ...LOL! Gay men like to fuck other men in the ass - gay men like to suck on the cocks of other men ...no normal male would even consider such things. So ....homo men ARE different to normal men. Now I know that that's a shock, so I'm hoping that you were sitting down when you read that revelation. If not, well, I'm sorry. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! And I'm sorry you feel punched in the face, but that's life, ain't it? Baron Max
I find it a silly exercise that demonstrates the absurdity of monogamous, exclusive, homosexuality. Be a Greek. Fuck as many men (or women) as you want. But then settle down and be serious.
I think so. I know that religious ceremonies are not acceptable for a legal definition of civil union. People from India married under a religious ceremony need to undergo a civil union if they move abroad.
Oh, really???? Hmm, I've been wondering about you, Sam, perhaps now I'm beginning to see the light. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Hey, how does the Koran view a man fuckin' another man in the ass??? Or a man suckin' another man's dick? Baron Max
Oh, c'mon, Sam ....please! Even if you don't know it, somewhere in that damned book is a passage that makes mention of men fuckin' other men in the ass!! I know it, just know it! ....even if you don't. Baron Max
SamCDKey: Baron Max is speaking for men very well here. Straight men find the sodomizing or engaging in oral sex with another man to be disgusting. There is very little in the ways of "scales of homosexuality" for a heterosexual guy.
I wonder, if we had a poll, how many members would admit to thinking that a male sticking his dick into another man's asshole is a good thing to do? Ditto for a man sucking another man's dick? How many would actually call that ............love??? Or something even remotely good? ...even with all of the horrid bacteria that thrive in the human asshole? Hmm, I wonder.....? Baron Max
It's neither 'good' nor 'bad'. It just is, so deal with it. Or, better still, just don't think about it - I don't. Except when people who claim to hate it keep bringing it up. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Well, yes, if it 'impacts'* you socially, that's different. How does it impact you socially? *And, yes, I intend to 'stuff' as many innuendoes into my replies as I possibly can. Forgive this - I'm English, and really can't help it.
