Homosexuals Get Equal Rights In New Jersey

[Gilder]

You should also add that Rhode Island citizens can also have a same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. That was ruled by on of thier judges recently.

 

[sysyphus]

And so more and more jurisdictions join in progressive policy: sorry to those of you who oppose it, but it's here to stay and only going to grow. Resistance is Futile!

 

[toh6wy]

I humbly submit that endorsing gay marriage has nothing to do with advancement of intellect or society. In fact, I believe it to be bad for society.

Please, do explain.

 

[sysyphus]

It means that when two gay people get married, their gayness will seep from their home and get in the air, which will then get into the homes of nice normal families where it will seep into the blood of good normal people causing an implosion where the whole family thus falls apart and families will be no more. Children will start getting strange ideas like their personal lives are their own property rather than that of the whole community and will start making their own choices in life, thus making it impossible to keep bonds with their parents and other family members, destroying the fabric of society as we know it. May even result in disease, famine and hurricanes.

 

[warpus]

From what i remember from a previous thread about same-sex marriage, Mobboss is afraid that once same-sex marriage is legal in the U.S., the country will be overwheled by hordes of gay immigrants who will in turn overwhelm the U.S. healthcare system with cases of AIDS and thus destroy western civilization.

 

[MobBoss]

From what i remember from a previous thread about same-sex marriage, Mobboss is afraid that once same-sex marriage is legal in the U.S., the country will be overwheled by hordes of gay immigrants who will in turn overwhelm the U.S. healthcare system with cases of AIDS and thus destroy western civilization.

Uhm, no...and I will thank you to not express my views for me, abeit incorrectly.

 

[Phlegmak]

A little Daily Show for your perspective:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/10/25/open-thread-291/

 

[Urederra]

poor turtle....

Anyway, I think comparing two people getting married with zoophilia is so wrong. Marriage is a civic union where two people give consent to live together, the priest doesn't marry, he is just the ceremony conductor and a witness. He also 'santifies' the union by giving the sacrament, but he doesn't marry. At least that is what I was taught in my Theology classes, given by an Opus Dei priest (the organization so badly depicted in Dan Brown's novel as being ultra christian conservative).

But a turtle or any other animal cannot give consent, so the weird things people say about if we allow two same gender people getting married we have to allow one person getting married to a turtle are just unfounded. Animals (other than people) cannot give consent. Same applies to paedophilia.

 

[Mathilda]

Sorry, but again I humbly submit that a civil union or partnership is not a marriage. Example: The UK law defining civil unions is very explicite on this point. Another example: In the US, the only state that allows SSM is Massachusetts and yet your list includes several states which do not in fact allow SSM.

As has been mentioned before...you can call it whatever you want, it still does not make it a marriage. And as I stated, as also did Urederra, that full blown legal SSM is only found in four countries.

So what, for you, makes a marriage a marriage?

In Finland the only difference apart from the name is adoption rights.
The name of "registered partnership" instead of "marriage" was done to spare the feelings of the religious, nothing wrong with that in my opinon, I hope you agree

In Sweden for example it went the same way, just a few years earlier and by now they have the adoption rights added. I expect the same will happen within a few years in Finland as well.

So what exactly is the difference?
No church is required to marry people they don't want to marry, as far as I understand. Whether you have a civil or religious ceremony doesn't make the marriage any different.
I just cannot find the practical difference.

 

[MobBoss]

So what, for you, makes a marriage a marriage?

In Finland the only difference apart from the name is adoption rights.
The name of "registered partnership" instead of "marriage" was done to spare the feelings of the religious, nothing wrong with that in my opinon, I hope you agree

In Sweden for example it went the same way, just a few years earlier and by now they have the adoption rights added. I expect the same will happen within a few years in Finland as well.

So what exactly is the difference?
No church is required to marry people they don't want to marry, as far as I understand. Whether you have a civil or religious ceremony doesn't make the marriage any different.
I just cannot find the practical difference.

Well, I cant help but think someone wants to turn my country into Finland. Sorry, but I will pass. Let the Fins and Swedes do what they want in their countries....and let Americans do what they want in America. If we dont want SSM what do you folks care?

 

[Mathilda]

Would you mind answering the question.
What is the difference?

 

[Gilder]

Well, I cant help but think someone wants to turn my country into Finland. Sorry, but I will pass. Let the Fins and Swedes do what they want in their countries....and let Americans do what they want in America. If we dont want SSM what do you folks care?

The same reason we hate communism and dictatorship. You're not letting two consenting adults do something beneficial to themselves, and harmful to no one.

 

[MobBoss]

Would you mind answering the question.
What is the difference?

Between SSM and civil unions? Or between traditional marriages and civil unions? Look, I am not in favor of either SSM or recognized civil unions; especially given the lack of real difference between the two. I would much rather favor changing such things as the tax law to allow for perceived unfairness to be addressed as opposed to the state officially recognizing same sex unions.

 

[Mathilda]

So why was it worth arguing that civil union is not the same as marriage and therefore only four countries that recognize actual same sex marriage count and not all the ones that allow civil unions or partnerships?


edit: as answer to your question, you said:

Sorry, but again I humbly submit that a civil union or partnership is not a marriage.

That was what I was refering to when I asked what the difference was.

 

[skadistic]

Well, I cant help but think someone wants to turn my country into Finland. Sorry, but I will pass. Let the Fins and Swedes do what they want in their countries....and let Americans do what they want in America. If we dont want SSM what do you folks care?

So by that statment you have no problem with Americans in America getting married if they are gay? Or is that Americans can do what they want in America as long as its ok with you?

 

[EquinoxOmega]

I would prefere equal rights for everybody, no matter what's his/her sexual oriantation. Everybody should be allowed to do anything, as long it doesn't hurt anybody. Well, this could possibly hurt some conservatives feeling, but I guess they shouldn't look in to their neighbours bedroom.

 

[Zarn]

Proof please? What 7 supreme court judges do in chambers is not indicative of what the man on the street feels. Does your statement mean that you are ok with the state holding a public vote on the subject? Lets let the people have their say and I will abide by that.

First of all, the people wanting something or not wanting something would not make it right. This is why a Republic is much better than a pure Democracy.

Second of all, I can assure you that ALOT of people in NJ have no problem with homosexual marriages or are unsure about it. I only live in NJ, afterall. Don't believe me, ask someone else living in this state.

 

[MobBoss]

So by that statment you have no problem with Americans in America getting married if they are gay? Or is that Americans can do what they want in America as long as its ok with you?

No..by that statement I mean let Americans decide on if they want gay marriage to be legal or not. If our population votes upon the matter and puts into our various state constitutions that indeed marriage is a union only between a man and a women, then so be it.

Second of all, I can assure you that ALOT of people in NJ have no problem with homosexual marriages or are unsure about it. I only live in NJ, afterall. Don't believe me, ask someone else living in this state.

So I ask you directly...are you opposed to a state wide vote upon the subject? And if so, then why?

 

[Zarn]

So I ask you directly...are you opposed to a state wide vote upon the subject? And if so, then why?

I wouldn't care so much, but you make it sound direct democracy is the only way. If that were true, our fellow citizens would have withdrawn our troops form Iraq long before now.

 

[El_Machinae]

The state owns its own usuage of the word yes, but they don't have to recognise the church's definition either.

In Canada, the reason why the law owns the definition is because they defined it in a legal document. This means that we have a legal definition of marriage. This definition then gets applied to all the common law that we partake of.

Like you know, the legal definition does not have to be the same as the social definition. The social definition will (likely) be a result of consensus (for the same reason we all agree that a 'spoon' is a 'spoon' - we all agree to call it that). However, the legal definition is a bit different - once defined, it's something that the whole of the law will apply to.