New Jersey embraces civil rights for all couples

[Irvine511]

Homosexuals have not been deprived of same right to marry as any other citizen -- only of the right to redefine marriage to fit their preferences.

Same-sex marriage is not a civil rights issue.

no. you are dead wrong here, and the NJSC ruling profoundly disagrees with this.

yes, a homosexual can marry a heterosexual, but in most cases, this constitutes what might be known as "fraud" -- or whatever reason Rene Zelwegger gave when she divorced Kenny Chesney.

if the point of marriage is love, stability, and to create an area for adult sexuality, then allowing hetero to marry homo accomplishes none of this. a marriage cannot be "authentic" unless both participants are of the same gender.

if you want to *really* redefine marriage, let's encourage all those David Guests out there to marry his own Liza Minelli

ETA: it occured to me when i was just taking out my contacts that this is precisely the same argument against interracial marriage. after all, white people could marry other white people, why did they have to marry a black person?

 

[AussieU2fanman]

Coming in late on this thread, but believe it or not I did read the whole thing...



Of course it is...the government is unilaterally denying a segment of the population (homosexuals) the right to marry. The whole point of the "legal definition" votes is to pull a legal end-around on this. If states can legally define marriage as a union between a man & woman then, hey, no infringement on civil rights right.

I guess what I'd like to ask those who oppose gay marriage is "why?" Because I don't honestly see how 2 men or 2 women marrying has an effect on anyone else. Basically I'd like to see an argument against it made without using God/Christianity/Scripture, and without resorting to "slippery slope" arguments.

I'm a secular humanist and have no affiliation with any organised religion and hence scripture anymore. And I still find gay marriage wrong. But I do accept homosexuality as a fact of life and accept they should be allowed to live and practice it together.
Yes I define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and yes it is a discriminatory one which I fully accept. Just like a man can not marry a dog he really truely loves and a brother can not marry his sister that he really truely loves. It does segregate various groups for the right of marriage. By all means I believe homosexuals can be together, but they do not have the right of marriage in my eyes. I simply don't see marriage as a right for every human being because that means anyone can marry whoever they want which is ridiculous. I am traditional in my definition of marriage despite being devoid of any religious advocation. It is by no means a homosexuals fault that he/she is gay, but because he is born (or learned?) with this anomaly in his/her sexual preference it retracts the sacred right of marriage. Gay marriage is just like a man being born without legs demanding the right to run in the 10,000m marathon.

And I truely believe society will never ever fully accept homosexual marriage, as so many people are threatened by changing x thousand years of tradtion and values.

And no homosexual marriage 'does not affect me,' just like many
other things don't, this does not vindicate the 'rightness' of it.

 

[Irvine511]

Yes I define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and yes it is a discriminatory one which I fully accept. Just like a man can not marry a dog he really truely loves and a brother can not marry his sister that he really truely loves. It does segregate various groups for the right of marriage. By all means I believe homosexuals can be together, but they do not have the right of marriage in my eyes. I simply don't see marriage as a right for every human being because that means anyone can marry whoever they want which is ridiculous. I am traditional in my definition of marriage despite being devoid of any religious advocation. It is by no means a homosexuals fault that he/she is gay, but because he is born (or learned?) with this anomaly in his/her sexual preference it retracts the sacred right of marriage. Gay marriage is just like a man being born without legs demanding the right to run in the 10,000m marathon.

what do you think marriage is for?

 

[INDY500]

Once again you'll get the

They haven't been deprived the right to marry?

I've been waiting for that 'don't drop the soap" smilie.

Irvine has no less rights to marriage than you or I, he just doesn't exercise them. That may sound flippant but it's true. However, equal protection under our constitution demands some type of arrangements be worked out regarding benefits and other economic and social issues as they pertain to domestic partners or civil unions. Irvine posts with great conviction, but not enough to convince me to leave my lofty position in 'the mob" or refute the "status quo."

 

[BVS]

Gay marriage is just like a man being born without legs demanding the right to run in the 10,000m marathon.

This has to be the worst analogy I've ever seen. A man with no legs can't physically run a marathon, so it's not an option of rights.

For one who attacks others and tries to sell themself as an intellectual, this post is probably one of the poorest pieces of logic I've seen in here in a long time.

 

[BVS]

I've been waiting for that 'don't drop the soap" smilie.

Irvine has no less rights to marriage than you or I, he just doesn't exercise them. That may sound flippant but it's true. However, equal protection under our constitution demands some type of arrangements be worked out regarding benefits and other economic and social issues as they pertain to domestic partners or civil unions.

So seperate but equal, but not even really equal... That's pretty much what you're saying.

Irvine posts with great conviction, but not enough to convince me to leave my lofty position in 'the mob" or refute the "status quo."

Well there are still those that believe and want segregation, they can't exactly let go, you can just join them as one of the left behind in a few decades...

 

[AussieU2fanman]

This has to be the worst analogy I've ever seen. A man with no legs can't physically run a marathon, so it's not an option of rights.

For one who attacks others and tries to sell themself as an intellectual, this post is probably one of the poorest pieces of logic I've seen in here in a long time.

In the sense in which I defined marriage, YES it is the right analogy. He cannot run the marathon because he doesn't have legs, and the gay person cannot marry because they are not meeting the criteria unto which I defined the tradional/conservative approach to marriage. They were both born that way, no one is at fault, and yet it is an unfortunate loss of rights.

 

[anitram]

I believe homosexuals can be together, but they do not have the right of marriage in my eyes.

But are you aware of the fact that homosexuals may have Constitutional rights to marry? And in that case, not to be flippant, but what difference does it make what rights they have in your eyes?

 

[Irvine511]

Irvine has no less rights to marriage than you or I, he just doesn't exercise them. That may sound flippant but it's true. However, equal protection under our constitution demands some type of arrangements be worked out regarding benefits and other economic and social issues as they pertain to domestic partners or civil unions. Irvine posts with great conviction, but not enough to convince me to leave my lofty position in 'the mob" or refute the "status quo."

why are you so scared of my getting married? what's so precious to you about the word that two men kissing threatens to destroy it for you?

no, i do not have access to the institution of marriage, inasmuch as a black person in love with a white person had access to the institution of marriage back in the era of anti-miscegenation laws.

it's a thoroughly meaningless to say that i am not exercising my marriage rights when i have been forbidden the authentic exercise of those rights by the state.

and doesn't this all come off as just a bit mean-spirited?

 

[BVS]

In the sense in which I defined marriage, YES it is the right analogy. He cannot run the marathon because he doesn't have legs, and the gay person cannot marry because they are not meeting the criteria unto which I defined the tradional/conservative approach to marriage. They were both born that way, no one is at fault, and yet it is an unfortunate loss of rights.

But with this extremely faulty logic you can define voters as white male. So everything will held to whim of those that define it, at this point is PURE bigotry, nothing else.

At least some people think they have a god telling them it's wrong, you have nothing but preference.

That is an anti-intellelectual form of legislation...

 

[Irvine511]

In the sense in which I defined marriage, YES it is the right analogy. He cannot run the marathon because he doesn't have legs, and the gay person cannot marry because they are not meeting the criteria unto which I defined the tradional/conservative approach to marriage. They were both born that way, no one is at fault, and yet it is an unfortunate loss of rights.

erm, but you can very easily give those rights to people who want and need them.

if you could give a brand new pair of legs so that someone could run a marathon, wouldn't it be rather cruel to deny it to them?

(not that i necessarily want to further this analogy)

 

[AussieU2fanman]

But with this extremely faulty logic you can define voters as white male. So everything will held to whim of those that define it, at this point is PURE bigotry, nothing else.

At least some people think they have a god telling them it's wrong, you have nothing but preference.

That is an anti-intellelectual form of legislation...

Adhering to traditional values is seen as bigotry in your eyes? The sacred right of marriage has stayed essentially the same throughout the course of history, I simply don't like the idea of it being embellished by various groups demanding entry into a club which they don't meet the criteria for which has been laid out over thousands of years. Is that really bigotry?

 

[martha]

The sacred right of marriage has stayed essentially the same throughout the course of history,

Sacred right? To be bought and sold like property?? No thanks; this woman does NOT want to go back to the traditional way of marriage.

 

[martha]

Adhering to traditional values is seen as bigotry in your eyes?

What about the traditional value of slavery? That went on for hundreds of years, and was finally abolished.

Damn liberals.

 

[indra]

In the sense in which I defined marriage, YES it is the right analogy. He cannot run the marathon because he doesn't have legs, and the gay person cannot marry because they are not meeting the criteria unto which I defined the tradional/conservative approach to marriage. They were both born that way, no one is at fault, and yet it is an unfortunate loss of rights.

Actually most road races also have wheelchair divisions so the person born with no legs can indeed participate. So that comparison doesn't work either (not that it ever did).

 

[Irvine511]

Adhering to traditional values is seen as bigotry in your eyes? The sacred right of marriage has stayed essentially the same throughout the course of history, I simply don't like the idea of it being embellished by various groups demanding entry into a club which they don't meet the criteria for which has been laid out over thousands of years. Is that really bigotry?

so only white men who own property should be able to vote?

 

[BVS]

Adhering to traditional values is seen as bigotry in your eyes? The sacred right of marriage has stayed essentially the same throughout the course of history, I simply don't like the idea of it being embellished by various groups demanding entry into a club which they don't meet the criteria for which has been laid out over thousands of years. Is that really bigotry?

Is it really bigotry? Yes.

What does history have to do with it, history also supported slavery for a long time, should we have kept that as well?

The problem is, you don't have any logical reasoning for your stance. For someone who talks about evolution, you would think you'd be aware that there is social evolution as well.

Why are you so hardline with the criteria that one needs a penis and the other a vagina? Because your parents said so?

 

[indra]

Adhering to traditional values is seen as bigotry in your eyes? The sacred right of marriage has stayed essentially the same throughout the course of history, I simply don't like the idea of it being embellished by various groups demanding entry into a club which they don't meet the criteria for which has been laid out over thousands of years. Is that really bigotry?

Yes, it is.

And I think your phrase "I simply don't like" hits directly to the heart of your opposition to gay marriage.

 

[BVS]

Right now taking scripture out of context and trying to push for theocratic law seems so much more logical...

 

[anitram]

Adhering to traditional values is seen as bigotry in your eyes? The sacred right of marriage has stayed essentially the same throughout the course of history, I simply don't like the idea of it being embellished by various groups demanding entry into a club which they don't meet the criteria for which has been laid out over thousands of years. Is that really bigotry?

Damn straight it's bigotry.

Was it bigotry to not allow women to vote? Was it bigotry to not allow women to own property? Was it bigotry to treat blacks like second class citizens? Was it bigotry to set up the apartheid system? Was it bigotry to set up imperial regimes and subjugate local populations to their rule?

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

And would you question any of those things today?

 

[AussieU2fanman]

There are a million clubs which discriminate against various groups and I see marriage as one of those clubs, not everyone should be allowed entry. Many others like me see marriage purely as a sacred bonding between a man and a woman, which is an exclusive club. I wouldn't demand entry to a pregnant woman's club. Would that make them bigots? Once again, it's how you define marriage, I don't want it changed beacuse this tradtional value is perhaps the ONLY thing we've done right throught humaities discourse. Slavery is wrong, misogyny is wrong etc. etc.

 

[anitram]

TI don't want it changed beacuse this tradtional value is perhaps the ONLY thing we've done right throught humaities discourse. Slavery is wrong, misogyny is wrong etc. etc.

And you don't think racists felt equally as strongly as you do that segregation was the right thing to do?

 

[melon]

Adhering to traditional values is seen as bigotry in your eyes? The sacred right of marriage has stayed essentially the same throughout the course of history, I simply don't like the idea of it being embellished by various groups demanding entry into a club which they don't meet the criteria for which has been laid out over thousands of years. Is that really bigotry?

When those "traditional values" have no basis in logic, reason, or scientific fact, then yes, it's bigotry.

But we're not talking about "religious marriage." If that is the case, then gays can get married already in certain denominations. All marriages, ultimately, boil down to "civil marriage," which is the one that bestows all the property, financial, etc. rights.

Melon

 

[BVS]

There are a million clubs which discriminate against various groups and I see marriage as one of those clubs, not everyone should be allowed entry. Many others like me see marriage purely as a sacred bonding between a man and a woman, which is an exclusive club. I wouldn't demand entry to a pregnant woman's club. Would that make them bigots? Once again, it's how you define marriage, I don't want it changed beacuse this tradtional value is perhaps the ONLY thing we've done right throught humaities discourse. Slavery is wrong, misogyny is wrong etc. etc.

Marriage isn't a club. Book club is a club, a fraternity is a club, poker night is a club... you know what all of these have in common, absolutely nothing to do with the government.

You're really gonna have to try harder.

 

[AussieU2fanman]

Why can't we let a brother and sister marry asuming they love eachother very much and they don't have kids (let's say ones infertile). Or better yet maybe a brother and brother? Give me a hardline reason why. I fail to see any reasons apart from it's tradionally seen as 'wrong' in the eyes of society.

 

[INDY500]

no. you are dead wrong here, and the NJSC ruling profoundly disagrees with this.

yes, a homosexual can marry a heterosexual, but in most cases, this constitutes what might be known as "fraud" -- or whatever reason Rene Zelwegger gave when she divorced Kenny Chesney.

if the point of marriage is love, stability, and to create an area for adult sexuality, then allowing hetero to marry homo accomplishes none of this. a marriage cannot be "authentic" unless both participants are of the same gender.

if you want to *really* redefine marriage, let's encourage all those David Guests out there to marry his own Liza Minelli

ETA: it occured to me when i was just taking out my contacts that this is precisely the same argument against interracial marriage. after all, white people could marry other white people, why did they have to marry a black person?

Kenny Chesney is gay?

So you want to compare gays to blacks under Jim Crow.
Point 1
The despicable laws that forbid marriage across color lines were intended to foster segregation and advance racial subordination and economic inferiority. Yes, as I've said, issues that you raise regarding benefits, taxes and insurance need to be addressed, but do you seriously think my objection to same-sex marriage is to keep you economically oppressed? Must not be working as the homosexual population as a whole has a higher than average standard of living does it not?

Point 2
If this were true, wouldn't black Americans, above all others, be sympathetic to your "fight for equality under the law." Yet this isn't the case. Support for same-sex marriage is LOWER among blacks and other minorities than the national average. Why is this?

Point 3
Race is immaterial to wedlock, but sex--the duality of genders--has always been the basis for marriage and family structure.

 

[melon]

There are a million clubs which discriminate against various groups and I see marriage as one of those clubs, not everyone should be allowed entry. Many others like me see marriage purely as a sacred bonding between a man and a woman, which is an exclusive club. I wouldn't demand entry to a pregnant woman's club. Would that make them bigots? Once again, it's how you define marriage, I don't want it changed beacuse this tradtional value is perhaps the ONLY thing we've done right throught humaities discourse. Slavery is wrong, misogyny is wrong etc. etc.

That's about all I have to say about this nonsense.

Melon

 

[BVS]

Why can't we let a brother and sister marry asuming they love eachother very much and they don't have kids (let's say ones infertile). Or better yet maybe a brother and brother? Give me a hardline reason why. I fail to see any reasons apart from it's tradionally seen as 'wrong' in the eyes of society.

Now you're really reaching. So there's a long line of brothers and sisters wanting to get married in your hometown?

Most incest relationships aren't truly consentual, there's usually some power trip occuring in the relationship.

Plus family already has legal rights in financial and medical needs.

 

[redhotswami]

I don't want it changed beacuse this tradtional value is perhaps the ONLY thing we've done right throught humaities discourse. Slavery is wrong, misogyny is wrong etc. etc.

I don't think it is something done right throughout the course of history. It has been used and abused by heterosexual couples for ages. People can even get married while completely inebriated.

Brittney Spears in Vegas.

I say, instead of focusing on WHO is getting married, why not consider WHY? People wanna marry out of love, whats so wrong with that? I don't understand why there is such a backlash against gay marriage but not one against the 10 minute quick-and-easy marriages that go down in the casinos. It happens all the time. Some people get drunk, get married, and wake up the next day not even remembering it all. Whats the traditional value in that? Why is that being ignored?

 

[melon]

Why can't we let a brother and sister marry asuming they love eachother very much and they don't have kids (let's say ones infertile). Or better yet maybe a brother and brother? Give me a hardline reason why. I fail to see any reasons apart from it's tradionally seen as 'wrong' in the eyes of society.

If you're really into marrying your sister, go for it. Who am I to stand in the way of your true love?

Melon