NJ justices poised to rule on Gay marriage

[TheBigDog]

This is sort of silly, the whole naming convention. It's marriage for crying out loud. Talk about placating the idiots who care...

 

If I murder someone, but call it a "focussed population adjustment" instead, is it different? :hihi:

 

 

Funny humans we are...

So alchemy is a science. And an alchemist is a scientist.

 

When people attempt to change the meanings of words because they feel excluded I typically take offense to that because words have meanings and are the structure of our communication and understanding. And while they do change over time, they should not change on the whim of the self proclaimed victim of exclusion in an effort to rewrite history into a picture they are happier to see.

 

Bill

[C1ay]

Unfortuneatly what I have read from the press says that the right wing politicals are unhappy because of their religious viewpoint that homosexuality is just plain wrong....

Religious viewpoints should have nothing to do with law. Some religions ban pork. Someone should ask the religious politicals what they think of supermarkets selling pork chops in jewish neighborhoods.....

 

BTW, this isn't directed at you cwes, I was just using a point you brought up to illustrate another point.

[pgrmdave]

When people attempt to change the meanings of words because they feel excluded I typically take offense to that because words have meanings and are the structure of our communication and understanding. And while they do change over time, they should not change on the whim of the self proclaimed victim of exclusion in an effort to rewrite history into a picture they are happier to see

 

I think I understand what you mean, BigDog, but look at it from a different perspective. The court said that they have to be equal in every respect. There will be no differenece between whatever this ends up being called and a marriage. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck, why not call it a duck?

[cwes99_03]

The court said that they have to be equal in every respect. There will be no differenece between whatever this ends up being called and a marriage. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck, why not call it a duck?

 

Actually that's not what it said at all. It said that in the eyes of the law they have to be treated equally. It allows for the term marriage to be applied only to heterosexual couples as long as whatever term is used to define the lawful union of a homosexual couple means they get all the same legal benefits a married couple gets.

Likewise in earlier separate but equal rulings, it was determined that it was not illegal to require black people to sit in their own train car as long as the train company made sure that every possible amenity was made to make sure they were treated equally in the eyes of the law.

 

What InfiniteNow is saying seems on the surface to mean that they get treated fairly, but the court recognized that even if they were married in name, that the law wouldn't necessarily require them to be treated fairly. Instead they required the inverse, that they be treated equally even if not in name.

 

Likewise, if they were allowed to "marry" then why not call them husband and wife, why not call it regular intercourse instead of sodomy, ... There is a reason for a word to be defined in a certain way. It's not to be changed on a whim. (Otherwise you'd be like Bush who loves to make up new words right? :hihi: )

[cwes99_03]

BTW, this isn't directed at you cwes, I was just using a point you brought up to illustrate another point.

 

Oh, no offense taken. I don't get involved in politics for that exact reason. I agree Christians should not participate in politics at all.

[TheBigDog]

I think I understand what you mean, BigDog, but look at it from a different perspective. The court said that they have to be equal in every respect. There will be no differenece between whatever this ends up being called and a marriage. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck, why not call it a duck?

Sorry, but there are bounds. Marriage has for hundreds of years been implicit of being a man and woman as husband and wife. It carries with it definition more specific than being a "couple". When I tell someone I am married it carries the additional meaning that I have a wife. And for my wife it carries the additional meaning that she has a husband. And in doing so it carries the implication that I am in fact not homosexual. And just as homosexuals have the right to be out and be proud, so do I as a heterosexual. But popular culture dictates that I am not allowed to say I am proud of being heterosexual, since this would mean I am a homophobe. Now this is hardly the point of this thread, but I am tired of the lofty implication of angry homophobia being the root of the want for keeping the definition of the word marriage. There are differences between my marriage and a same sex marriage. And blurring that fact does not change the way society will quantify and catagorize people one iota. It will only make all of us answer extra questions to help people gather the data.

 

Bill

[Zythryn]

Sorry, but there are bounds. Marriage has for hundreds of years been implicit of being a man and woman as husband and wife.

 

I agree there need to be bounds. However, your statement about marriage should have read 'Marriage has for hundreds of years, in my family or in the portion of society my family has been exposed to, been implicit of being a man and woman.'

As marraige is defined differently in different societies. The mormons define it very differently. In some parts (many parts??) of the middle east one man tend to take multiple wives.

 

It carries with it definition more specific than being a "couple". When I tell someone I am married it carries the additional meaning that I have a wife. And for my wife it carries the additional meaning that she has a husband. And in doing so it carries the implication that I am in fact not homosexual. And just as homosexuals have the right to be out and be proud, so do I as a heterosexual.

 

I agree, you should be able to be very proud of your heterosexuality and should not be labeled for expressing that pride.

 

For me, marriage has a very specific definition.

Marriage is when two people choose to join their lives together. They feel that their other half completes them and will care for, support and love that person as long as they live (and then some:)). I do believe that minors are not capable of making that level of commitment and that marriage could be harmful to them, therefore they should not be allowed to marry.

 

I do not believe that homosexuals getting 'married' makes my marraige mean any less. My commitment to my wife does not mean any less because Jim and Bob down the street get married.

 

Just my two cents on the issue:)

[TheBigDog]

The mormons define it very differently. In some parts (many parts??) of the middle east one man tend to take multiple wives.

The only point I would like to make is that in the case of poligamies you mention it is still defined as a man and a woman.

 

And just for the record... since I married a Mormon woman, I am obligated to say that there was a split in the Mormon Church over 100 years ago. The LDS Church of today does not practice, support or condone poligamy. And saying so is the equivilant of calling a Catholic a Protestant. The very small group that does practice poligamy is not much more than a cult that hangs onto the name Mormon and keeps the urban legend alive.

 

See Shannon! I listen. ;)

 

Bill

[Freddy]

Someone once suggested that the states get out of the marriage business and issue only civil unions to straight and gay couples. Then states allow the individual churches grant marriages to their followers who have received state santioned civil unions.

[Edella]

Marriage has for hundreds of years been implicit of being a man and woman as husband and wife.

 

According to Nancy Cott, professor of history at Harvard University,if you're talking about the history of the world and not just the last two centuries, the proportion of the world populated by monogamous households were a tiny, tiny portion. In my opinion,it is really a question of which part of the history do we want to keep and which do we want to discard. And we've already discarded a lot of it:

 

For most of mankind’s “civilized” history, a woman was considered a possession of first her father and then her lawful husband. Until as recently as twenty years ago, in some areas of America women still needed a husband’s signature to obtain a credit card or mortgage. Through most of Western civilization, marriage has been more a matter of money, power and survival than of delicate sentiments.

 

I wonder what someone from 15th century Europe would think of present day western marriage?

[TheBigDog]

In Ohio I need my wife's signature to get a mortgage.

 

The method of the arrangement of the marriage does not change the fact that it was defined as a man and a woman.

 

Bill

[InfiniteNow]

Watch out... next, people will want to marry meerkats... ;)

[C1ay]

Someone once suggested that the states get out of the marriage business and issue only civil unions to straight and gay couples. Then states allow the individual churches grant marriages to their followers who have received state santioned civil unions.

Guilty as charged, I have advocated this for years.....

[Edella]

In Ohio I need my wife's signature to get a mortgage.Bill

I think you missed my point.The woman had to get permission from her spouse ,the man did not.

 

The method of the arrangement of the marriage does not change the fact that it was defined as a man and a woman.Bill

It seems to me it has been most commonly defined as man and property.And as I noted earlier,the proportion of the world populated by monogamous households were a very small portion.I disagree that a marriage has,until relatively recently,been defined as (1) man and (1)woman.If you point is that marriages between two men or two women is very rare historically,I agree.I just fail to see how this is a valid legal argument.

 

In the United States, as in Europe, how and why people married, who was allowed to marry, and how marriages functioned has continually evolved.The only thing I see that has remained fairly consistent(until recently) is (1)man owning one or more wives.The history and tradition of marriage is, in my opinion, a mixed bag.

 

I'm not arguing for gay marriage in my last two posts Bill,I'm just confused as to why so many people seem to (imo)cherry pick tradition and history for this issue. In many ways,we're risen above the traditions of the past with regards to marriage.

[TheBigDog]

I'm not arguing for gay marriage in my last two posts Bill,I'm just confused as to why so many people seem to (imo)cherry pick tradition and history for this issue. In many ways,we're risen above the traditions of the past with regards to marriage.

 

Marriage Mar"riage, n. [OE. mariage, F. mariage. See Marry,

v. t.]

1. The act of marrying, or the state of being married; legal

union of a man and a woman for life, as husband and wife;

wedlock; matrimony.

[1913 Webster]

 

During the past 230 years that US marriage laws have been written, use of the word "marriage" by itself meant just as is written above. This definition and its use in US law is the basis of he tradition that I am speaking about.

 

Bill

[C1ay]

FWIW, here's more on the origin of "marriage":

 

marriage

 

1297, from O.Fr. mariage (12c.), from V.L. *maritaticum, from L. maritatus, pp. of maritatre "to wed, marry, give in marriage" (see marry).

 

"When two people are under the influence of the most violent, most insane, most delusive, and most transient of passions, they are required to swear that they will remain in that excited, abnormal, and exhausting condition until death do them part." [G.B. Shaw]

 

Marriage counselling first recorded 1945. Marriage bed, fig. of marital intercourse generally, is attested from 1590.

[Edella]

During the past 230 years that US marriage laws have been written, use of the word "marriage" by itself meant just as is written above.

You're cherry picking the very definition you offer as proof that you are not cherry picking! Did you notice the "for life" part BigDog? Surely you agree there are reasons to terminate a marriage. If all U.S. marriage laws have followed that definition,we would have no divorce.

 

Edit-I meant document, not definition.