Homosexuals Get Equal Rights In New Jersey

[Tank_Guy#3]

Wisconsin is voting on a Constitutional Amendment to no longer allow same sex marriages and civil unions.

Most here can guess which way I'm voting.

Spoiler :

:thumbdown

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

So is Virginia. Had I been registered in time I would have voted on (ie against) it. Even though I, personally, don't like the idea of gay marriage, I think that a constitutional definition of marriage is a rather silly thing to have.

 

[GenMarshall]

Not sure if Connecticut is going to redefine the meaning of marriage, I know they have Civil Unions. But there are talks up in Hartford that they may redefine it. And many would know what I would vote for, to keep it as marriage as defined as between a man and a woman.

 

[Theige]

This is just more of the same;

The more educated, liberal people of this country leading the way on social issues. Its been this way for a long time

 

[IglooDame]

Not sure if Connecticut is going to redefine the meaning of marriage, I know they have Civil Unions. But there are talks up in Hartford that they may redefine it. And many would know what I would vote for, to keep it as marriage as defined as between a man and a woman.

How about if the man or the woman has a sex-change operation after they're married? Are they not married anymore? Or how about if the operation preceded the marriage?

 

[GenMarshall]

How about if the man or the woman has a sex-change operation after they're married?

I doubt the man or woman who is married to the trans-man or trans-woman would approve of the change and would often lead to divorce.

Are they not married anymore? Or how about if the operation preceded the marriage?

If marriage is defined as between a man and a woman, then they have an invalid marriage since one party is not or no longer the member of the opposite sex. If the operation preceded the "marriage", it still will not be considered a marriage cause one of the party is not a member of the opposite sex.

 

[Gilder]

If you say marriage is "defined" as being between a man and woman, why can we not change this "definition" so it is applicable to everyone?

 

[Zarn]

This is just more of the same;

The more educated, liberal people of this country leading the way on social issues. Its been this way for a long time

That's trolling. There are conservatives (a few) and libertarians (most of them) for it. There are also liberals well against this.

 

[sysyphus]

If you say marriage is "defined" as being between a man and woman, why can we not change this "definition" so it is applicable to everyone?

Exactly, there's a reason dicitionary publishers keep releasing new editions.

 

[GenMarshall]

If you say marriage is "defined" as being between a man and woman, why can we not change this "definition" so it is applicable to everyone?

Aint going to happen. Marriage between a man and a woman is a tradition in the western world. If you redefine marriage, then you also include the allowing and approval of other sexual taboos such as zoophilia and approving non-traditional marriages such as polygamy. So no, we cannot change this definition of marriage

 

[Tycoon101]

Aint going to happen. Marriage between a man and a woman is a tradition in the western world. If you redefine marriage, then you also include the allowing and approval of other sexual taboos such as zoophilia and approving non-traditional marriages such as polygamy. So no, we cannot change this definition of marriage

I only would support bestiality if catgirls were real

But I disagree, that wouldn't open the door for other sexual practices, it would just make the practicers be more brazen.

 

[Zarn]

You have two logical fallacies there (I just read them in another thread). Saying 'it is tradition' and the 'slipperly slope' arguement are both fallacies.

 

[El_Machinae]

How do you define 'woman'? XX chromosomes? Female naughty bits?

 

[Sidhe]

If you say marriage is "defined" as being between a man and woman, why can we not change this "definition" so it is applicable to everyone?

Because marriage is based on religous traditions generally, or has become formalised through a religion. So if there version of marriage says it is man and woman, they find it very hard to accept the change.I'm not against this, we should respect religious traditions, in the same way we should respect the views of those who don't meet their standards.

Civil unions however essentially, sidestep the religous issue and put the framework in terms of equal tax and legal frameworks, if people descriminate against a person based on this then they are guilty of treating other people unfairly of setting an uneven playing field, and no matter how many people agree with such a view point or pass it into law it is still unfair(since the bible has nothing to say on civil unions) It is pretty much bigotry, and there is no real argument. Having the right to be treated equally under the law is part and parcel to a democracy, you take away such rights, that is no longer democracy but subjugation based on prejudice.

 

[Gilder]

Aint going to happen. Marriage between a man and a woman is a tradition in the western world. If you redefine marriage, then you also include the allowing and approval of other sexual taboos such as zoophilia and approving non-traditional marriages such as polygamy. So no, we cannot change this definition of marriage

Not really. That's a bit of an exagerrated consequence for what would happen. And a man marrying another man, or a woman marrying another woman is hardly a sexual taboo.

Besides, who is there to back those up, besides people who practice it? I don't see people who enjoy a relationship with a single person campaigning for polygamy.

 

[skadistic]

Aint going to happen. Marriage between a man and a woman is a tradition in the western world. If you redefine marriage, then you also include the allowing and approval of other sexual taboos such as zoophilia and approving non-traditional marriages such as polygamy. So no, we cannot change this definition of marriage

The western world isn't very western anymore. Your traditions are less traditional to many people. You can not say western when you mean christian. With the decline of christianty's strangle hold on the minds of "westerners" your christian definition only holds true for christians. Its rude and mean to force everyone to conform to your standards.

 

[Zarn]

The western world isn't very western anymore. Your traditions are less traditional to many people. You can not say western when you mean christian. With the decline of christianty's strangle hold on the minds of "westerners" your christian definition only holds true for christians. Its rude and mean to force everyone to conform to your standards.

Yeesh. I'm getting attacked left and right. There is no one Christian definition. There isn't even one Catholic definition, because CG and I do not agree.

 

[GenMarshall]

Saying 'it is tradition' and the 'slipperly slope' arguement are both fallacies.

I don't care if they are fallacies or not, I dont want to see Gays and Lesbians marrying and making the tradition of marriage meaningless as well as giving approval to a lifestyle that I don't approve of.

How do you define 'woman'? XX chromosomes? Female naughty bits?

Strictly on Genetics. What I define a woman are the XX chromosomes. And dont get into the confusing generic abnormalities such as XXY or X?

 

[Gilder]

I don't care if they are fallacies or not, I dont want to see Gays and Lesbians marrying and making the tradition of marriage meaningless as well as giving approval to a lifestyle that I don't approve of.

I'm afraid Hollywood has already done that.

 

[skadistic]

I don't care if they are fallacies or not, I dont want to see Gays and Lesbians marrying and making the tradition of marriage meaningless as well as giving approval to a lifestyle that I don't approve of.


Strictly on Genetics. What I define a woman are the XX chromosomes. And dont get into the confusing generic abnormalities such as XXY or X?

How exactly does it make marriage meaningless? What is the meaning of marrige?