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.
All of the serious fiscal issues that face this state, issues that effect ALL citizens, and this is what the Senate and Assembly want to focus on?
You said it brother.
I cant believe people get worked up in a tizzy over issues like this. Who really cares? Gays get the same benefits and tax breaks as married couples in this state. Its just two sides bickering like children over whether they want to continue to call it a civil union or call it marriage. Arguing like a bunch of morons over a word.
Nothing but a distraction from the real issues that never end up getting addressed.
is this grammatically correct? its always funny to me how people say "separation of chuch and state" as if that statement alone means anything. i dont really believe the constitution separates the church and state except the say that the government cant promote one single religion above another.
It's more like 55%, but okay. I am going to exercise my right as a citizen and vote no because I think its bad legal precedent and because I don't want to start recognizing something that is a genetic disorder as just something "natural." Vote the way you want, its your right.
If it's a "genetic disorder" is it not then something "natural"? I also do not understand how it sets bad legal precedent, maybe you could enlighten me? No offense, but while I somewhat respected your position as being opposed to using the word marriage, I think you are just digging yourself a deeper and deeper hole. Don't try to cover your bigotry with another name, just say how you actually feel.
is this grammatically correct? its always funny to me how people say "separation of chuch and state" as if that statement alone means anything. i dont really believe the constitution separates the church and state except the say that the government cant promote one single religion above another.
It's a rather nuanced piece of language. Jefferson was probably the biggest proponent of it and he wrote extensively on its importance. The most famous of which is his letter to the Danbury Baptists.
This letter is the genesis of the term "separation of church and state". This is the pertinent section:
Quote:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.
In other writings Jefferson more directly stated his opinion. Basically, religion is a matter of personal value and faith and no persons value or faith is greater than anothers. The governments role is not to facilitate the enfranchising or recognition of particular beliefs above others, but instead to guarantee the right of all people to live their life as they so choose as long as their doing so does not infringe upon the rights of another to do so.
It's more like 55%, but okay. I am going to exercise my right as a citizen and vote no because I think its bad legal precedent and because I don't want to start recognizing something that is a genetic disorder as just something "natural." Vote the way you want, its your right.
Hmmm...so, following through on your line of thinking, then I suppose that albinos should also be denied equal rights?
Anyway--I find it extremely revealing that you have not even attempted to respond to my earlier post where I pointed out the serious inconsistencies in your position regarding "religious law".
Just how many unsupportable positions do you have?
I respect the rights of same-sex couples to pursue happiness. This is an issue best left up to states, but I am going to vote no because I think to re-define marriage in New Jersey would be the wrong thing for the state. I support civil unions and domestic partnership laws, but I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. From a constitutional standpoint, this is a state issue. Calling me a bigot hurts your argument because clearly, I am not a bigot.
So, you believe that the government should enforce your beliefs? Why? The government shouldn't refer to any couple that is joined legally as a "marriage" if that's your argument. the word comes from a long time ago, and it was a contract between two families. It wasn't defined as man and woman until some religions took ownership of the word. It doesn't make you a bigot, but you are forcing your beliefs on others through the government.
The government shouldn't refer to any couple that is joined legally as a "marriage" if that's your argument.
thats generally my feeling. that the government has no business regulating relationships for either hetero or homosexuals. however, i do believe the best thing for our country is 2 parent heterosexual families raising children and so part of me wants to support these types of relationships (and certainly not support other types as i see no benefit as a country to supporting them).
Genetic disorder???? Are you reading literature from the 70's when being homosexual was still looked at as a disease....becuase it is no longer looked at that way.
It is just as natural as me being heterosexual and being attracted to a man. Just as you think it would be un-natural to be attracted to someone of the same sex, gay people feel that it is un-natural for them to be attracted to someone of the opposite sex.
You might want to step into this century.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smartone
It's more like 55%, but okay. I am going to exercise my right as a citizen and vote no because I think its bad legal precedent and because I don't want to start recognizing something that is a genetic disorder as just something "natural." Vote the way you want, its your right.
Genetic disorder???? Are you reading literature from the 70's when being homosexual was still looked at as a disease....becuase it is no longer looked at that way.
It is just as natural as me being heterosexual and being attracted to a man. Just as you think it would be un-natural to be attracted to someone of the same sex, gay people feel that it is un-natural for them to be attracted to someone of the opposite sex.
You might want to step into this century.
i think that in this century we accept that certain people have these preferences. i dont think we have to pretend that its perfectly fine.
So, you don't think that most NJ residents are against gay marriage?
how's that relevant? were most NJ residents against interracial marriages years ago? Does that make it "right"?
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.
