Homosexuals Get Equal Rights In New Jersey

[plarq]

Because heterosexual couples never commit adultery!

The problem is, if you don't let gay couple marry, they are committing adultery. But that kind of "adultery" does not involve cheating spouse, they should be treated differently from "true" adultery, which is extra marital relationship involved with cheating and deceiving their spouses.

 

[Truronian]

I disagree. Rights are inherent. Medieval England may not have recognized that right, but I believe they should have.

America does not recognise homosexual marriage as a right, but I believe they should. Unless everyone agrees on what rights are inherant, the only way to decide those that are is by majority rule...

 

[El_Machinae]

Because heterosexual couples never commit adultery!

Right, but once a couple is married, their intercourse is no longer adultery! It's best for a monogamous couple to get married.

Once one recognises that homosexual behaviour is understandable when viewed with a subjective mindset, then one realises that it's natural for them to be allowed to be married. This is much the same as a Catholic voting that non-Catholics should be allowed to get married too; they should only recognise Catholic marriages, but the truth is that they don't - they recognise all secular marriages.

Banning homosexual marriage is as unintuitive as banning left-handed can-openers.

 

[Che Guava]

Banning homosexual marriage is as unintuitive as banning left-handed can-openers.

I think we've found a campaign slogan

 

[Zarn]

Sally can marry bob why can't I?

I don't know. Ask someone against your potential marriage to Bob.

 

[IglooDame]

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.

I agree with you 100% regarding rights vs privileges. However, something that IS a right is for the government to provide the privileges without respect to race/creed/gender and so on. Equal treatment under the law. And that's where the 'marriage is a privilege' argument has failed in the past with anti-miscegenation laws, and will fail again with anti-samesex laws.

 

[cegman]

Umm.... Adultery is having sex with the person you aren't married to while you married or while they are married. The only person I have seen that was really hard on sex was Saul(Paul) otherwise it seems like sex before marriage is not so much adultery but something else entirely.

 

[cegman]

Excuse me? But do I go around killing homosexuals? NO. Do I go around killing African Americans? NO And do I go around killing Catholics, Ops, you forgot the KKK are anti-Catholic so how can I be a member of the KKK when they are hostile to Catholics. its quite illogical for a Catholic to be a member of an anti-Catholic organization. I say to you that I dont do any of the things the KKK does.

Look I would have let this drop if you hadn't pulled this logical fallacy. What does the fact that you are catholic have anything to do with the fact that I think some of your statements are similar to an anti-catholic group. You are not part of that group. That was a pretty terrible logical fallacy there.

 

[Elrohir]

I agree with you 100% regarding rights vs privileges. However, something that IS a right is for the government to provide the privileges without respect to race/creed/gender and so on. Equal treatment under the law. And that's where the 'marriage is a privilege' argument has failed in the past with anti-miscegenation laws, and will fail again with anti-samesex laws.

So your position is anyone can marry anyone, regardless of whether society approves, or thinks it is legitimate? What's to stop people from having group marriages of 3 people? Or 30? Or to stop fathers from marrying their daughers? (Or sons!)

I know, I know, no one likes the slippery slope argument. My point is just this: Can society really say that it can, and should place limits on polygamy or incest, or even a minimum marriage age, and then say that it cannot place other limits on other groups? (Like gays) I'm not equating gays with polygamists, or people who commit incest, or anything like that. I'm just saying that most people would support banning polygamy, or incest, or pedophilia. Why is it legitimate to ban certain forms of "marriage" but not others? A little consistency would be nice.

 

[Godwynn]

So your position is anyone can marry anyone, regardless of whether society approves, or thinks it is legitimate? What's to stop people from having group marriages of 3 people? Or 30? Or to stop fathers from marrying their daughers? (Or sons!)

I know, I know, no one likes the slippery slope argument. My point is just this: Can society really say that it can, and should place limits on polygamy or incest, or even a minimum marriage age, and then say that it cannot place other limits on other groups? (Like gays) I'm not equating gays with polygamists, or people who commit incest, or anything like that. I'm just saying that most people would support banning polygamy, or incest, or pedophilia. Why is it legitimate to ban certain forms of "marriage" but not others? A little consistency would be nice.

By that same argument why let heterosexuals get married? Since it will lead to gays getting married, and then group marriages.

 

[MamboJoel]

Elrohir, anyway, why does it bother other people get rights ?

 

[El_Machinae]

I will happily admit that polygamy is on the slippery slope; the rest aren't. To understand why would require a couple paragraphs explanation. But legally, in almost all places where there is common law (what we have in Canada and the States), polygamy would be next. But the rest? Nope. They're a totally different ballgame.

 

[Elrohir]

By that same argument why let heterosexuals get married? Since it will lead to gays getting married, and then group marriages.

No, it doesn't.

I will happily admit that polygamy is on the slippery slope; the rest aren't. To understand why would require a couple paragraphs explanation.

Not worth the trouble?

 

[Godwynn]

No, it doesn't.

Yes it does, it's the same lame slippery slope argument.

 

[cegman]

Polygamy laws are attacks on a certain religion that was despised as much as it is a moral law. They should be kept on the books to prevent fraud through freaky marriage groups.

 

[El_Machinae]

Not worth the trouble?

That's something you have half the answer to.

 

[IglooDame]

So your position is anyone can marry anyone, regardless of whether society approves, or thinks it is legitimate? What's to stop people from having group marriages of 3 people? Or 30? Or to stop fathers from marrying their daughers? (Or sons!)

I know, I know, no one likes the slippery slope argument. My point is just this: Can society really say that it can, and should place limits on polygamy or incest, or even a minimum marriage age, and then say that it cannot place other limits on other groups? (Like gays) I'm not equating gays with polygamists, or people who commit incest, or anything like that. I'm just saying that most people would support banning polygamy, or incest, or pedophilia. Why is it legitimate to ban certain forms of "marriage" but not others? A little consistency would be nice.

I'll take your three 'slippery slope objections' separately:
- marriage age: equal protection under the law has an age caveat - it is reasonable to deny certain privileges (and even rights) to minors for their own protection.

- incest: setting aside minors (for which the age caveat kicks in anyway), I'd say the slope-buster is that there's an existing familial relationship already, but then again - why the heck not? Two adults can readily comprehend the risk of genetic problems passed on to children, that's their call.

- polgamy: aside from procedural or technical questions (like, are companies responsible for providing dependent health insurance to all spouses or just one designated one, etc), I don't see a problem with legalized polygamy. But, mindful of objections from people such as yourself, I think polygamy would be the straw that breaks the camel's back in finally getting government out of the granting of the marriage privilege entirely.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

O joy, another gay marriage thread. Haven't had one in a while.

Anyways, I feel, as always, that marriage is too sacred, too ancient, too important an institution to be defined by the government. So let's have civil unions for all, and let the "marriage" part be based on the love or mutual respect or whatever. A marriage is greater than a government contract. But at any rate, I cannot criticize this latest development. Certainly I don't see it as a threat to the good ol' man/woman marriages that I believe to be valid in the eyes of the Lord.

Maybe if we are lucky this will start a trend.

 

[CurtSibling]

Homosexuals Get Equal Rights In New Jersey

Good to see enlightened legislation in action.

.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

It also occured to me that greater than the tax breaks, as benefits from marriage, are immigration and age-of-consent issues. if I marry a 17-year-old girl who is an illegal immigrant and a Mexican citizen, I am a-okay. If a woman marries a 17-year-old girl who is an illegal immigrant and a Mexican citizen, she will go to jail for statutory rape and the girl will be deported. Their marriage would not be considered illegal, but nonexistent. There at least, I can see a real argument for equality, unless age-of-consent laws are going to factor gender in, which they shouldn't.