New Jersey Supreme Court to announce ruling on Gay Marriage

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: JD50
Equal rights for everyone right guys? So I can bring my dog, cat, 4 girls I picked up at a bar the other night, a couple of guys I met yesterday, my twin sisters, and some underage congressional pages and we can all get married and have one big happy family right?

If your argument is "equal rights for everyone" then you must agree with this.

'Consentual' is the key ingrediant you're missing. Dogs, cats mice, and children have no ability to consent, thier minds are not devolped enough.. My second thought is you need to get out more.

Polygamy is not a problem IMO and soon won't be when Shaira law Comes to the west.

Cool, as long as I can marry all of my siblings then I'll be happy

You're reaching. We protect children and thus any offspring you'd have with your sister has a high propensity for severe physical or mental handicap which is unfair to the child.... To put her in the world like that.

 

[Corporate Thug]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: loki8481
we put artificial barriers all over our laws.

if 21 year olds are allowed to legally drink, than shouldn't 20 year olds be allowed to drink? and what about 19 year olds? and 9 year olds? etc, etc.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html

If that is true then why can't we but barriers on marriage?

because marriage, unlike drinking, has been held over and over by courts to be a fundamental right. Therefore, any barrier to marriage must be subject to strict scrutiny by the judiciary.

 

[LunarRay]

Article 1.. sub 1 and 5 seem to be what the court relied on.. even if some of the court used other words

That is a very broad Article... covers most anything one might want to do..

Now don't ya wish the US Constitution was just as plain in the 14th Amendment.. hehehe

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: JD50
Equal rights for everyone right guys? So I can bring my dog, cat, 4 girls I picked up at a bar the other night, a couple of guys I met yesterday, my twin sisters, and some underage congressional pages and we can all get married and have one big happy family right?

If your argument is "equal rights for everyone" then you must agree with this.

'Consentual' is the key ingrediant you're missing. Dogs, cats mice, and children have no ability to consent, thier minds are not devolped enough.. My second thought is you need to get out more.

Polygamy is not a problem IMO and soon won't be when Shaira law Comes to the west.

Cool, as long as I can marry all of my siblings then I'll be happy

Poor siblings:disgust:

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Polygamy is not a problem IMO and soon won't be when Shaira law Comes to the west.

Hmm.... French minister says polygamy to blame for riots:

Gérard Larcher said multiple marriages among immigrants was one reason for the racial discrimination which ethnic minorities faced in the job market. Overly large polygamous families sometimes led to anti-social behaviour among youths who lacked a father figure, making employers wary of hiring ethnic minorities, he explained.

While this issue merits its own thread, I tend to agree with the above remark regarding polygamy -- just look at how Osama ended up

Seriously though, just think about the friction within a regular family with only a handful of children, and then think how it all gets a whole lot worse when you have dozens of children fighting for attention, comounded by infighting among the wives.

Naturally, such a family cannot survive while adhering to Western values. What you need is a strong male figure -- most likely violent -- in order to keep the boys in check, and making sure the wives behave themselves; naturally, in this atmosphere, the girls will learn that they have to be quiet and subservient, while the boys will no doubt learn that when they grow up they will need to rule their own family with an iron fist, while giving little respect to women.

Needless to say, that is anti-social behavior, as defined in the West. If you don't like the West's definition of what is social or not, you can always move to Saudi Arabia.

 

[Pandaren]

Originally posted by: Craig234*Sexual orientation* barriers have no justification for restricting marriage, but for bigotry.

That sums it up.

The plain fact of the matter is that a substantial majority of religious conservatives in the US see homosexuality as a choice and a sin. All the logic in the world will not convince them otherwise.

I see the same old debunked arguments over and over again: (1) OMG marriage to animals (2) Sanctity of heterosexual union being destroyed. The fact that animals can't consent, the fact that allowing gays to marry has no effect on the ability of straight people to marry, and the fact that straight people are almost completely responsible for fraking up the entire "marriage" institution, all seem to be lost on religious opponents of same sex marriage.

There's nothing else to say. Neither side is going to give an inch, ever.

 

[Moonbeam]

As I understand it, the reason that polygamy is allowed in Islam is so that a man could care for his fallen brother's wife. It is there to support the thousands of women who had no trade and whose husbands had been killed in war. It was meant as social welfare to take care of widows and orphans. A man usually married his fallen brother's wife.

 

[her209]

I think we should strip all privileges that come with marraige. Its not fair to us single folk.

 

[Cooler]

Originally posted by: her209
I think we should strip all privileges that come with marraige. Its not fair to us single folk.

I 100% agree.

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: Cooler
I 100% agree.

Did you run that by your wife first?

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
As I understand it, the reason that polygamy is allowed in Islam is so that a man could care for his fallen brother's wife. It is there to support the thousands of women who had no trade and whose husbands had been killed in war. It was meant as social welfare to take care of widows and orphans. A man usually married his fallen brother's wife.

Yeah.. and look what happened to Henry Tudor.. married his big brother's wife, Catherine of Aragon, after he died... it was expected. But that was not welfare.. well in a matter of looking at it it was... Aragon was pretty ritzy land.

I can't imagine having more than one wife.. good grief.. no... not no but hell no..

Me thinks that we youmans should live like the Lions and Tigers... yup... eat zebra..

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: her209
I think we should strip all privileges that come with marraige. Its not fair to us single folk.

what privileges are you referring to? things like the right to inherit your spouse's property or the "right" to pay alimony or child support after a divorce?

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Bad timing if you want the Democrats to win...

not really. maybe if the decision was to legalise same-sex marriage. but the likely outcome here will be civil unions, and the laws won't be changed for 6 months - long after the elections.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Bad timing if you want the Democrats to win...

not really. maybe if the decision was to legalise same-sex marriage. but the likely outcome here will be civil unions, and the laws won't be changed for 6 months - long after the elections.

I somehow doubt they'll bother to look into the duances of the decision. President Bush has already been thumping about "traditional marriage" and activists judges... I doubt he's even read the NJ constitution. it's really quite clear:

"All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain natural and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness. ..

No person shall be denied the enjoyment of any civil or military right, nor be discriminated against in the exercise of any civil or military right, nor be segregated in the militia or in the public schools, because of religious principles, race, color, ancestry or national origin. "

yes, the decision was 4 to 3... but what no one's pointed out is that those 3 desenters weren't against gay marriage. in fact, they dissented because they wanted to legalize same-sex marriage immediately. not one judge on the panel read the NJ constitution and disagreed with the legal necessity for gay couples to have access to the same rights as straight couples in the state of NJ.

the ruling, in fact, doesn't even change much for NJ, which already had domestic partner laws on the books, and where same-sex marriage / civil unions is pretty much widely supported across the state.

a washington post article has a really solid analysis of the details of the ruling, but I somehow doubt the 700 Club voters and Rush bobbleheads care about anything other than "omg, the pedophiles are corrupting society!"

edit: also worth mentioning that the 3 judges who wanted to legalize gay marriage outright were all appointed by a Republican.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: her209
I think we should strip all privileges that come with marraige. Its not fair to us single folk.

what privileges are you referring to? things like the right to inherit your spouse's property or the "right" to pay alimony or child support after a divorce?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/26/nyregion/26benefits.html

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: loki8481
I somehow doubt they'll bother to look into the duances of the decision. President Bush has already been thumping about "traditional marriage" and activists judges..

the masses can't remain outraged about gays and gay marriage forever. sooner or later, the outrage will be replaced by boredom for a majority of people and the Republicans will need a new group to scapegoat.

 

[wiin]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: JD50
Equal rights for everyone right guys? So I can bring my dog, cat, 4 girls I picked up at a bar the other night, a couple of guys I met yesterday, my twin sisters, and some underage congressional pages and we can all get married and have one big happy family right?

If your argument is "equal rights for everyone" then you must agree with this.

'Consentual' is the key ingrediant you're missing. Dogs, cats mice, and children have no ability to consent, thier minds are not devolped enough.. My second thought is you need to get out more.

Polygamy is not a problem IMO and soon won't be when Shaira law Comes to the west.

It is already here.

 

[XZeroII]

I don't support gay marriage. I think it is unnatural. Yea, I know some of you will hate me and call me names, but people have a right to feel how they want. I have a right to not like people or groups of people. I group gay marriage in the same category as a parent marrying a child. It just shouldn't happen.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
As I understand it, the reason that polygamy is allowed in Islam is so that a man could care for his fallen brother's wife. It is there to support the thousands of women who had no trade and whose husbands had been killed in war. It was meant as social welfare to take care of widows and orphans. A man usually married his fallen brother's wife.

No man is alloewd 4 wives. Again perfect muslim, is Mo, and among other things he had four wives....Happens to this day in Muslim world. Great book is "behind the veil" about a girl 16 forced to be 3rd wife of a 53 yr old merchant in jedha. What makes it most interesting is she was born in USA, and tasted freedom, and presents her story from US prospective distipite her total imprsionment.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
I don't support gay marriage. I think it is unnatural. Yea, I know some of you will hate me and call me names, but people have a right to feel how they want. I have a right to not like people or groups of people. I group gay marriage in the same category as a parent marrying a child. It just shouldn't happen.

Well, there are fundamental rights ALL people ought to have and in some places do have... One such right is for you to express your feelings in an open forum such as this... As can I. Another freedom is not to have one's freedoms or rights trampled on by folks who for what ever reason don't like the rights someone else finds worth enjoying. Ya see... in the Constitution of New Jersey each citizen is considered a unit.. a total and complete unit unto him or her self.. that two of these units seek to enjoy the same rights as some other two units seems quite normal to me.. We really ain't a nation of people under God or Rocks or Turtles.. but, rather, a nation of people with equality equal to each other with out regard for any other issue or belief.

 

[extra]

"So a gay couple living in Alabama goes to Jersey and gets married. Comes home and sues to force the state to recognize their marriage. And all hell breaks lose. "

I LOL'D.

Apparently letting gays get married is all hell breaking loose.

It's funny that people actually think like that.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
I don't support gay marriage. I think it is unnatural. Yea, I know some of you will hate me and call me names, but people have a right to feel how they want. I have a right to not like people or groups of people. I group gay marriage in the same category as a parent marrying a child. It just shouldn't happen.

Why shouldn't it happen. Why should other people have to live by what you think is right and wrong when you can't even give a reason why things should be as you say other than that the should be that way. You also have a right not to wipe your ass but people are going to notice you stink.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: XZeroII
I don't support gay marriage. I think it is unnatural. Yea, I know some of you will hate me and call me names, but people have a right to feel how they want. I have a right to not like people or groups of people. I group gay marriage in the same category as a parent marrying a child. It just shouldn't happen.

Why shouldn't it happen. Why should other people have to live by what you think is right and wrong when you can't even give a reason why things should be as you say other than that the should be that way. You also have a right not to wipe your ass but people are going to notice you stink.

Do you believe that parents should be allowed to marry their children? Do you believe that cousins should be able to get married? Sure, there are potential health risks if they have kids, but it should be their decision, right? This is the same category that I lump gays into. I don't actively campaign against gays getting married, I just don't support it. I find it unnatural.

Should people be able to marry cows or other animals? Give me a good reason why not that doesn't contradict your arguments for gay marriage and I'll listen.

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
Should people be able to marry cows or other animals? Give me a good reason why not that doesn't contradict your arguments for gay marriage and I'll listen.

Actually there is an increadibly obvious reason why they can't marry animals. Animals are not judged as capable of conciously giving consent. Until intelligent talking aliens show up we don't have much to debate in this area.

The health issues are a rather obvious difference from the Gay issue. Genetic imbreeding can be specifically viewed as a potentially problematic long term health problem for society as a whole. On top of this there likely would be concerns about the possibility of unequal levels of control when giving consent to marry a parent. Your cousin example is actually an extremely bad one given its LEGAL in a large number of states for someone to marry their cousin right now.

 

[Enig101]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: XZeroII
I don't support gay marriage. I think it is unnatural. Yea, I know some of you will hate me and call me names, but people have a right to feel how they want. I have a right to not like people or groups of people. I group gay marriage in the same category as a parent marrying a child. It just shouldn't happen.

Why shouldn't it happen. Why should other people have to live by what you think is right and wrong when you can't even give a reason why things should be as you say other than that the should be that way. You also have a right not to wipe your ass but people are going to notice you stink.

Do you believe that parents should be allowed to marry their children? Do you believe that cousins should be able to get married? Sure, there are potential health risks if they have kids, but it should be their decision, right? This is the same category that I lump gays into. I don't actively campaign against gays getting married, I just don't support it. I find it unnatural.

Should people be able to marry cows or other animals? Give me a good reason why not that doesn't contradict your arguments for gay marriage and I'll listen.

There is nothing unnatural about homosexuality. It is well documented in many wild species. You are entitled to your opinion, but I am afraid you are misguided.

Incest and bestiality are illegal and should remain illegal for obvious reasons (birth defects and protection of animals, respectively, if I have to spell it out).

I'm not homosexual, and I cannot fathom finding other guys attractive. However I recognise that gay people have the same rights that we all do. 100 years ago people thought black people and white people should not get married.