Homosexuals Get Equal Rights In New Jersey

[Urederra]

Don't worry, nobody's going to make you marry someone of the same gender.

That is what I was going to say.

Why people are so strongly against gay marriage? Does it affect you so badly as to make campaign against it?

 

[Tycoon101]

Rights are what the majority declares them to be, and as such are no different from 'privileges'.

No, the majority cannot take away the country's rights. Even if most people say that they want to take away the rights that are detailed in the US Constitution, they cannot. These our rights given to us by a higher order. It's not a religious document, but these rights are handed to us by God, and only God may take these rights away.

Marriage is not detailed in the Constituion, right? If it isn't, then marriage is not a right, but a privilege.

 

[Truronian]

No, the majority cannot take away the country's rights. Even if most people say that they want to take away the rights that are detailed in the US Constitution, they cannot. These our rights given to us by a higher order. It's not a religious document, but these rights are handed to us by God, and only God may take these rights away.

Marriage is not detailed in the Constituion, right? If it isn't, then marriage is not a right, but a privilege.

A majority can easily remove the constitution. Its as easy as voting in the next Hitler.

 

[Elrohir]

Then why are you arguing against same-sex marriage?

Sorry, typo.

Does New Jersey have 'equal protection under the law' in their state constitution?

No idea.

Man, there are enough dead horses in CFC to supply McD's with their 'beef' for the next few billion to serve.

But anyway... Would you care to explain why someone has the 'right' to marry a prospective spouse of any race, but not of any gender?

No one has the "right" to have a government sanctioned marriage. Government sanctioned marriage is a privilege, not a right. Denying someone the right to marry someone of another race would indeed, in my opinion, be wrong, yes, but one no more has the "right" to than one has the right to marry anyone, or to drive a car, or anything else that is a privilege, not a right.

Woohay! Lets hope they keep sliding down the slippery slope . I find the whole 'don't call it marriage' stance a tad... petty... to be honest.

You're welcome to your opinion.

Rights are what the majority declares them to be, and as such are no different from 'privileges'.

I disagree. Rights are inherent, privileges are not. I would argue that every human being has the fundamental right to, say, believe in whatever religion they wish. But there is no fundamental, inherent right to have the government sanction your marriage.

They do not, however, have the right/freedom to marry who they love.

So? The problem isn't that they love someone, it's that they want to marry someone of the opposite sex - that is the defining issue here, not love, and that is what the debate should hinge upon.

 

[Tycoon101]

A majority can easily remove the constitution. Its as easy as voting in the next Hitler.

Incorrect. Excuse me for seeming rude, but I feel that the idea that the majority can take away their freedoms is backwards. That's what separates America from the rest of the world: Unless our Constitution is destroyed totally, we cannot take away our rights.

If the majority dislikes our rights, then they can move to Europe and be oppressed by their own will.

Hitler could be voted into American politics, but he could not eliminate the basic rulesets that our Founding Fathers set into stone. If he attempts that, there would be a revolution, and we all know who wins when there is an American Revolution.

 

[Cuivienen]

I disagree. Rights are inherent, privileges are not. I would argue that every human being has the fundamental right to, say, believe in whatever religion they wish. But there is no fundamental, inherent right to have the government sanction your marriage.

There is if government sanctioning of your marriage gives you some sort of other benefits. Otherwise, it's unequal treatment.

 

[Truronian]

I disagree. Rights are inherent, privileges are not. I would argue that every human being has the fundamental right to, say, believe in whatever religion they wish. But there is no fundamental, inherent right to have the government sanction your marriage.

Your example is only a right because society has agreed that it is. In Medieval England they did not agree on that right, and as such it did not exist.

So? The problem isn't that they love someone, it's that they want to marry someone of the opposite sex - that is the defining issue here, not love, and that is what the debate should hinge upon.

Marriage is fundementally an expression of love, so the issue hinges on both things.

 

[.Shane.]

The problem isn't that they love someone, it's that they want to marry someone of the opposite sex

Finally cutting to it.

So what? Let them. It won't harm anyone or anything.

 

[Truronian]

Incorrect. Excuse me for seeming rude, but I feel that the idea that the majority can take away their freedoms is backwards. That's what separates America from the rest of the world: Unless our Constitution is destroyed totally, we cannot take away our rights.

If the majority dislikes our rights, then they can move to Europe and be oppressed by their own will.

Hitler could be voted into American politics, but he could not eliminate the basic rulesets that our Founding Fathers set into stone. If he attempts that, there would be a revolution, and we all know who wins when there is an American Revolution.

The majority can do whatever they want (by way of electing officials), thats one of the problems with democracy. The constitution is not some almightly omniscient code of honour. If the majority want rid of it they'll vote someone in who gets rid of it.

 

[Shadylookin]

The supreme court of new jersy says gays are legally entitled to marriage. try all the wishy washy talk in the world about rights priveleges and the various symantics but it's a done now.

I for one agree with them. Either everyone can get married or no one should be able to.

 

[Atlas14]

I say since marriage is a religious term, they can "marry" but simply should call it something else. And if a church wants to marry them, then sure, it can be called marriage in that case. But the definition is man and woman, so unless a church makes an exception to allow same sex marriages, a marriage is between a man and woman.

 

[Tycoon101]

The majority can do whatever they want (by way of electing officials), thats one of the problems with democracy. The constitution is not some almightly omniscient code of honour. If the majority want rid of it they'll vote someone in who gets rid of it.

And the person who will attempt to get rid of it will either be laughed out, or be killed by a Patriot. If you touch the Constitution, and try to destroy it, then you are treasonous in my mind.

The Constitution will last as long as America lasts, and unless you want to risk your life to try to undermine America's values, I would recommend that no politician even dream of breaking it.

 

[Cuivienen]

I say since marriage is a religious term, they can "marry" but simply should call it something else. And if a church wants to marry them, then sure, it can be called marriage in that case. But the definition is man and woman, so unless a church makes an exception to allow same sex marriages, a marriage is between a man and woman.

Marriage isn't a religious term. No one called it a religious term until Vermont's Supreme Court said that Vermont had to give "equal rights". Then people wailed that marriage was religious, so people started calling it a religious term. It is in no way religious.

 

[Truronian]

And the person who will attempt to get rid of it will either be laughed out, or be killed by a Patriot. If you touch the Constitution, and try to destroy it, then you are treasonous in my mind.

He will have the support of the majority. You cannot kill an idea, and it will not be laughed out when it is agreed upon.

The Constitution will last as long as America lasts, and unless you want to risk your life to try to undermine America's values, I would recommend that no politician even dream of breaking it.

Not a given.

Regardless of the sidetracking... the constitution can be amended. Marriage could be defined as a right (and I would not be suprised if something to that effect happens in years to come).

 

[Atlas14]

Marriage isn't a religious term. No one called it a religious term until Vermont's Supreme Court said that Vermont had to give "equal rights". Then people wailed that marriage was religious, so people started calling it a religious term. It is in no way religious.

Well, then, its settled. There is no reason why homosexuals can't be married. All we need to do is change the definition of marriage. We've manipulated the definition of democracy plenty of times, keeping with the same overall ideals. So now we should be able to do it with the definition of marriage, the overall ideal being a long-lasting, happy relationship regarded as official.

 

[El_Machinae]

I say since marriage is a religious term

I think it historically can be considered to be such; but religions were much more important in society than they are now. We no longer base our laws upon religions.

Now a marriage is a secular term, with religious undertones for some people.

I figure that it's not logical for a homosexual person to marry anybody but the person they love, and that marriage is (again, historically) tied to sex - so it should also be the person they want to have sex with.

Like I said, it gets rid of adultery!

 

[Tycoon101]

He will have the support of the majority. You cannot kill an idea, and it will not be laughed out when it is agreed upon.

Heh, then I suppose there would be an American terrorist group that opposes the oppressive bastards that have taken their country.

Not a given.

Regardless of the sidetracking... the constitution can be amended. Marriage could be defined as a right (and I would not be suprised if something to that effect happens in years to come).

Well, the majority does not want to amend the Constitution, so it won't happen within your lifetime.

 

[Truronian]

Heh, then I suppose there would be an American terrorist group that opposes the oppressive bastards that have taken their country.

Wouldn't suprise me.

Well, the majority does not want to amend the Constitution, so it won't happen within your lifetime.

Its already been amended once in my lifetime.

 

[Tycoon101]

Its already been amended once in my lifetime.

I meant to include a Pro-Gay-Marriage Stance.

 

[sysyphus]

I say since marriage is a religious term, they can "marry" but simply should call it something else.

The English language is public domain.

And if a church wants to marry them, then sure, it can be called marriage in that case. But the definition is man and woman, so unless a church makes an exception to allow same sex marriages, a marriage is between a man and woman.

Some have. Here in Canada the United Church of Canada performs same sex marriages (and in fact lead the legal fight to have them recognised here), as well are some reform synogogues.