Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The problem with a vote like this is like Prop 8 in California. While Californians voted, they were influenced by truckloads of money from out of state. People who live nowhere near NJ will be twisting and minupulating both sides... and they don't have to live with the resulting change or lack-of.
Same thing is happening in Wisconsin with the Governor recall.
Whether you think it's a sin or not isn't relevent.
Yes, I know that there are men and women who can't procreate together because of some problem, but a fact remains that 2 men or 2 women together can't. Nothing about that can be changed, unless you bring science into the picture.
I also believe in live and let live as I know people who are gay and I'm happy for them, seriously.
But the word marriage has been created for a man and women. If you gays want to tie the knot, go ahead with my blessings and may you have every single right that a married coupled has, but please lets not call it a marriage.
Make the law of the land that a marriage and civil unions are identicial in rights for all partners.
alright, without using the bible since that is irrelevant in this discussion. please tell me where in history said that only a man and a woman can get married.
it makes sense from the perspective that a person with a preference must make a choice to go another route because that preference isnt a good one. im not drawing an equivalency between the act of homosexual sex and pedophilia.
maybe someone loves skydiving or some other dangerous act but chooses the give that up for safety and concern for his family. people choose all the time to adjust their preferences based on what is best for their lives. a guy may wish to have sex with many women, but he sacrifices that option by getting married so he can have a stable family life that may be more valuable than getting busy with lots of ladies.
ok, i admit im hoping angry nation guy reads that word and it makes him even angrier.
I understand your thoughts on this, but why do you feel that someone must ultimately deny who they are to simply conform to the whims of what society believes they should be? If two homosexuals wish to seek each other out, then so be it, it's between them.
I think your pedophilia analogy may be somewhat correct; in that I do believe something like pedohpilia, like all other sexual preferences are something "hard coded". The difference would be that someone who is a pedophile cannot satiate their needs without causing great and irreversible harm to someone else. Hence, why I also believe that pedophiles should be imprisoned for life in a psychiatric hospital, there is no curing it. Homosexuality does not present the same issue.
I feel that if you accept it that it is the way "someone is made" then whether you want to consider it a defect or not, they should be extended the right to live their life the way they choose or are pre-wired to choose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smartone
Sorry, but that is not how you win an argument. You win arguments by presenting facts. The facts are, NJ has civil unions and domestic partnership laws, that is fine but marriage is for 1 man and 1 woman, nothing more, nothing less, period.
It's great that NJ at the very least grants equal rights at the state level. In fact, it's one thing I've been reminding people of all along whenever this debate came up, it's really not about rights in NJ.
However, since you want to pound the drum on what marriage means, why do you think same-sex couples being "married" would tarnish what marriage is? What basis are you going off of? Why do you feel so strongly about it?
I'm curious, because as a happily married hetero, it wouldn't bother me in the least. I just can't escape the feeling that for some people it isn't about presercing something "sacred" to them as much as it is reinforcing that homosexuals are not equal to heterosexuals. It's almost like the give them equal rights, but not the word marriage, is simply the position of people clinging to a losing position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElizNJ
I'm glad he vetoed this. It's a huge and controversial issue and such a decision shouldn't be made by a few people, but put on a ballot for the citizens to decide.
I can agree that the public should perhaps have a vote on using the word marriage to describe the union. What the public should never have a vote on is whether or not a certain group should be given equal rights. The majority either through apathy, fear or hate will always vote to deny rights to the minority.
So, granting of equal rights via a civil union, that should be legislated.
Deciding if we want the term marriage to apply to that union, I can agree with letting people vote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 90sman
Good. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Not two men or two women. Homosexuality is a sin and allowing homo marriage is like saying homosexuality is okay and that it's okay to live a life of sin. It's also very bizarre.
Since when did the concept of sin ever have a bearing on discussing the granting of equal rights? People commit numerous acts that are sinful and plenty of acts that are far more "sinful" in the eyes of the Bible then the act of homosexuality. Yet, we routenly grant murderers, thieves, adulterers, etc. fully equal rights under our laws. Why is this different? Why does Christianity and the concept of sin have a bearing on this discussion?
If you feel the act is sinful, don't engage in it and stay "clean" in the eyes of your God. However, don't force your values upon others, unless you are ready to have their values forced upon you.
alright, without using the bible since that is irrelevant in this discussion. please tell me where in history said that only a man and a woman can get married.
In the western world...
Of note is the root of the word marriage, which is the Latin word "matrimonium", which derives from the word "mater" which means mother. Basically, a man takes a woman and enters into "in matrimonium ducere" in order to produce children with her.
This state of institution though is separate from the legal binding of people in Rome under a term "conubium", a legal marriage.
The first term "matrimonium" was a religious term, the second "conubium" was a secular legal word. There is evidence throughout the Roman period of same-sex legal unions (conubium) having been in place, though rare, but even some emperors engaged in them. There is even limited evidence of these unions being performed with an accompanying ceremony. However, "matrimonium" was always between a man and a woman as a religious union for the sole purpose of producing children. A man and woman were "in matrimonium" and legally bound by a "conubium" at the same time.
When Christianity became the State Religion of the Roman Empire, there was a turn against homosexuality in general, but the unions in particular. In 342AD, co-emperors Constantius II and Constans issued the Theodosian Code. Within the code was a banning of same-sex "conubium" in all Roman provinces. Performing or engaging in such a union was punishable by death.
As the Roman Empire declined, it's power and position in terms of social laws was taken by the institution of the State Church of the Roman Empire. The church gained the authority as the arbiter of social affairs and the concept of "matrimonium" and "conubium" became intertwined. In fact, this was the key power of the church, they decided how and to whom people could marry. In 1054, the Great Schism occurred and gave birth to the Catholic Church in the west and the Orthodox Church in the east with both continuing the tradition of the State Church of the Roman Empire, but in somewhat divergent directions on ecclesiastical matters.
In the west, there is some evidence of the early Catholic Church being somewhat tolerant of same sex unions. There is one such union recorded in Galicia (northwest Spain) in 1061. However, it was a rather rare event and the one I mentioned is most likely the last same-sex union ever performed in a Catholic Church.
So, basically, if we go back to the foundation of where we got the words from, there was a legal idea of marriage and a religious idea of marriage that used separate terms. It was not until Christianity was introduced and the power over the union of people was consolidated in the church, that the concepts merged into what we currently consider marriage, which has both a legal and religious definition. So, one cannot escape the Bible if we want to have this discussion, this is why things are the way they are.
alright, without using the bible since that is irrelevant in this discussion. please tell me where in history said that only a man and a woman can get married.
I'll give you the same answer that your parents gave you when you were a child...."Because"
I'll give you the same answer that your parents gave you when you were a child...."Because"
That's just the way it's always been.
Of course, at one time we all bowed down before a king that was ordained by God to rule over us. I venture those who questioned why, were given the same answer you just gave, that's just the way it's always been.
One thing to keep in mind is that you can be an educated, progressive, rational, reasonable adult and still be in favor of the traditional definition of the word marriage.
Last edited by Goldendoodle1969; 02-28-2012 at 08:04 AM..
One thing to keep in mind is that you can be an educated, progressive, rational, reasonable adult and still be in favor of the traditional definition of the word marriage.
Absolutely, which is why, as I've repeatedly stated, I think it is a little foolish of the GLBT lobby to make a massive issue out of the word, when what they are supposedly after is equal rights. A lot of opposition would "change sides" if the requirement to use the word was dropped. If you look at my post about where we got the word marriage from, it's obvious that there is at least some western tradition about their being a difference between a religious marriage and a legal marriage, both of which had different terms applied.
Still though, I find that some in this thread and elsewhere in general, are using the defense of the word marriage as simply a cover for bigotry against homosexuals. Meaning they don't really want them to have equal rights either, but if that's the way it's going, we at least need to deny them use of the word marriage.
For all those thumping their bibles, no one is forcing your church to bestow the title of "married" on a homosexual couple.
There are two separate and distinct uses of marriage. One is getting a marriage license from the state; the other is going to your church and having them declare you married.
The only one homosexuals give a damn about is the license from the state.
Absolutely, which is why, as I've repeatedly stated, I think it is a little foolish of the GLBT lobby to make a massive issue out of the word, when what they are supposedly after is equal rights. A lot of opposition would "change sides" if the requirement to use the word was dropped. If you look at my post about where we got the word marriage from, it's obvious that there is at least some western tradition about their being a difference between a religious marriage and a legal marriage, both of which had different terms applied.
"It is a little foolish of the African-American lobby to make a massive issue out of the location of the drinking fountain, when all they're supposedly after is access to water."
Quote:
One thing to keep in mind is that you can be an educated, progressive, rational, reasonable adult and still be in favor of the traditional definition of the word marriage.
Educated, yes, but I'm not sure how you can be progressive, rational, or reasonable and in favor of discriminating against a whole class of people.
Quote:
I'll give you the same answer that your parents gave you when you were a child...."Because"
That's just the way it's always been.
I hope you realize that this argument is the equivalent of dropping your hands in the boxing ring vs an in-his-prime Mike Tyson, with any person with even the slightest education being able to play the role of Mike Tyson.
Quote:
So, basically, if we go back to the foundation of where we got the words from, there was a legal idea of marriage and a religious idea of marriage that used separate terms. It was not until Christianity was introduced and the power over the union of people was consolidated in the church, that the concepts merged into what we currently consider marriage, which has both a legal and religious definition. So, one cannot escape the Bible if we want to have this discussion, this is why things are the way they are.
Yes one can, as I did in the post above. Marriage is not consolidated at all. I can't say anything more about that than that it's just a wrong statement. I can be married without ever setting foot inside a church, reading the bible. Hell, I could worship the devil and be married. No one really cares about the Christian version of marriage, sorry to say. That's not what this discussion involves.
Quote:
I'm glad he vetoed this. It's a huge and controversial issue and such a decision shouldn't be made by a few people, but put on a ballot for the citizens to decide.
No, it shouldn't. Should civil rights have been put on a ballot? Wouldn't have passed.
I could go on and on about this, but I've already participated in this sad thread more than I intended to. Some of you are making me very sad for my state, and thankful that better days are ahead, with a much more connected and open-minded populace starting to come of age.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
