NJ justices poised to rule on Gay marriage

[TheBigDog]

Yes, and our declaration of independence still states that all men, rather than all people are created equal. What a dictionary defines may not be relevant to what a law defines. The actual wording in the 2/3rd of a person did not isolate Africans, it defined "free persons". Women were free yet denied the vote longer than Africans who were freed. Dictionary definitions are updated on a regular basis, sometimes due to laws being changed.

The Declaration of Independance is not US Law, and so the words do not need to be held to the close scrutiny of law.

 

The politics of the time that counted slaves as 3/5ths of a person needs to be taken into account. It was used to prevent the slave states from being too powerful in the House and Senate, giving the free states an edge in the eventual elimination of slavery. Was this the ideal solution? No. But it was the solution that was used, and the framers should not be condemned for doing it as it was key in freeing the slaves. Point the condemnation at the states who chose to allow slavery, and temper it with the understanding that it ended 144 years ago.

 

Bill

[TheBigDog]

We fpeak the language, and if we all agree to change it, change it we can.

 

Otherwife we'd all need to make all of our "S"'s into f's.

 

Like thif.

 

I argue againft the refhaping of letterf!

 

TFS

[i know it's not really an f, but an elongated tail, but point ftandf.]

Utter Bullfhit

[TheBigDog]

So the claim is that there is an attempt to redefine the word marriage. The etymology shows that the word meant "two people" in it's origin around 1297CE with no mention of gender and that it was derived from the french word, "mariage" which itself was derived from the lower latin word "maritaticum".

 

From the French Wiktionary for mariage we have:

 

which translates to:

 

It would appear that today's definition requiring "a man and a woman" is itself a redefinition of the original term. Is there any etymological evidence to support the claim that using the term marriage to mean anything but a union between a man and woman is actually a redefinition of the word? Is there any evidence to show that the roots, mariage, maritaticum, maritatus, or maritatre meant only unions between opposite genders? IMO, such evidence is required if the application of the term "marriage" being applied to gay couples is to be construed as a "redefinition" of the word.

The point is the meaning of the word as understood and used by the lawmakers at the time the law was written. You are otherwise very clever indeed.

 

Bill

[InfiniteNow]

Multiple definitions of the same word. Moot point.

I beg to differ, as semantics are intricately married to this concept...

 

Is someone else's marriage threatened by broadening the definition? We're not talking stock prices here Bill...

[cwes99_03]

Yes, we should, because the uncle discrimination problem is so huge. :D

 

Actually, I think that's an entirely different issue. I can tell whether someone is going to be someone's brother or sister just by looking (mostly).

 

Now, if you could make a crime to discriminate against someone based on sexual orientation (like it is do with race, or marriage status, or age, or gender) then it doesn't matter whether someone is maronked or married.

 

It really gets down to whether separate is inherently unequal, or whether it can be equal, and if it can be equal, what you do to enforce that equality.

 

TFS

Ok, I've heard a lot of good ideas here that I would wholeheartedly agree with.

 

1) calling it maronked wouldn't be discriminatory, it would simply be definitionary. Saying a maronked couple couldn't benefit from each other's death (such as inheriting a pension from the state) would be discriminatory and illegal according to this ruling.

2) calling it maronking vs marrying is like calling a person an african-american vs a caucasian-american. The terms do not discriminate. They define. As long as you don't say we refuse service to you because you are ... or something similar then it isn't discrimination. You can likewise choose to use the N word, if you don't mind the social stigma that has come into effect with the use of that word.

 

I would agree, remove all marriage laws from the books, because any marriage law doesn't really have to do with marriage anyway. How does having combined taxes have anything to do with whether it is a man and woman or two men. Can't two people get a mortgage together whether they are married or not? All the institution cares about is the seriousness of the relationship.

 

Marriage is a term and bond that to the best of my knowledge originated with the Judean religious system.

 

Polygammists still marry each wife individually. Thus each marriage is still between one man and one woman. Their ideas just don't prevent a man from getting married multiple times, however they do prevent a woman.

Now legally, the government has a problem with this because they consider it too difficult to separate out the assets of one man and his 5 wives to be fair to each. Likewise, in the OT each wife of those men had to be treated equally, thus for a man to take on more than one wife would mean serious headaches for himself.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Utter Bullfhit

 

Why? Language is fluid - we change definitions and execution all the time. We don't write "s" like f anymore, we don't spell jail "gaol", we consider women to be included in the term "men" or "mankind" in certain contexts, and we think "colored" is an offensive word when used to refer to people, and that gender is a synonym for biological sex (in most cases.) (For instance read Leviticus 19:19 (KJ) for an alternate (and pretty confusing) usage of the word gender.)

 

Marriage is a term and bond that to the best of my knowledge originated with the Judean religious system.

 

Nope, marriage is kind of a fundamental human institution in that all societies have it. Rarely is it between one straight man and one straight women, and for the purposes of love and companionship - but it crops up most of the time.

 

In fact, even offering a definition of marriage is problematic, because it requires that we accept the definition of "man" and "woman", which is by no means secure. What about the bedarche of Native American cultures, or the hijira of India?

 

So, we can say - okay, marriage in the western world has traditionally been between one man and one woman. But then we can also say that marriage in the western world has traditionally been a economic and social arrangement, and not a romantic or sexual one.

 

Marriage is SOCIALLY defined, not defined by the dictionary. Thus, we can change it if we want. If we want to start calling "marriage" the relationship you have with your dog, and "maronking" the relationship you have with your wife, we can do that. There is no reason, other than tradition, that we can't change the definition to fit changing social situations.

 

So, if you just want it to be the way it's always been, whatever - there's nothing wrong with that, but it's not really a very good reason.

 

TFS

[cwes99_03]

I find a lot of what you said wrong for a few simple reasons.

1) The stigma that is associated with the word may change, but it's meaning does not. Thus the term colored used to be an acceptable term for any person not of caucasian decent, and particularly of a negroid decent. That term still means the exact same thing, only a new stigma is attached to it, so that the user is viewed in a different light.

2) would you mind having a second crack at the following quote as I don't think it is clearly saying what you are trying to say, because 99% of the time marriage has been a contract between one straight man and one straight woman, and not all societies had it before christian missionaries traveled abroad and instituted it.

marriage is kind of a fundamental human institution in that all societies have it. Rarely is it between one straight man and one straight women, and for the purposes of love and companionship - but it crops up most of the time.

 

3) I've never heard of the term man or woman which is used to describe the gender of a human being as being in question. Even hermaphrodites have the ability to be termed as a man or woman due to functionality of their genitalia. But hermaphrodites make up a seriously small portion of the population anyway, so in the largest portion of the population then man and woman are well defined terms.

 

4) when you ask about bedarche and hijira, I get a bit confused. Since neither term is marriage, and we are talking about a western word, and the term "western" has been used for 2 millenia as a term to basically mean derived from of judeo-christian and ancient Greek influence, and the term translated as marriage in english, has been used for more than those two millenia to mean between a man and a woman (note i used the word A, not many)

5) Marriage is socially defined, and has been for, well, let's say 4000 years. Thus it has not been changed for a very long time and does not need to be changed simply because a small portion of the population <10% wants to be called something they aren't.

6) marriage in the western world has not traditionally been an economic arrangement, as treating a married man and a single man differently financially has never been traditional. Only in recent times has the economic arrangement for married and single people been differentiated. It has been a social arrangement, for a long time, and once again those social arrangements came from a society that was predominantly (90% or more) judeo-christian. Up until the last 50 years, marriage was a romantic and sexual arrangement, as sex outside of marriage was not permissable and even illegal for most of the last 3000 years in western culture.

7) Tradition isn't the reason for doing this per se. The reason for doing anything linguisticly is because of linguistics. Trace back the roots, and marriage means between a man and a woman. Are you going to say that the root of the word, the origin of it needs to change?

 

 

Hey you know what let's stop calling people humans because some portion of the world wants to be called crustaceans.

[cwes99_03]

Some etymology for you all on the terms surrounding marriage. I'm sure there is much more, but this will get those juices flowing.

 

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=marry

 

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=husband&searchmode=none

 

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=wife&searchmode=none

 

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=wedding

 

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/marriage

 

http://experts.about.com/q/Italian-Language-1584/Etymology-Italian-words-marriage.htm

 

And for a good laugh, and yet valuable information

http://historymedren.about.com/library/bletym.htm

[InfiniteNow]

Maybe homosexual couples would shut up about being afforded equal rights if we promised them 40 acres and a mule. Whatdya think!

[TheBigDog]

Maybe homosexual couples would shut up about being afforded equal rights if we promised them 40 acres and a mule. Whatdya think!

I got the mule, where are my 40 acres? (Dear God, please don't let Shannon read this post)

 

Bill

[Freethinker]

First, just because I choose to dive into this discussion at the point of reading your specific post, does not mean all my comments were towards you and/or your post. In fact I merely grab one short line from your post to launch from.

Where did I make any reference to religion?

Show us ANY objection to homosexual marriages outside of a religious frame work. I have never seen any SECULAR reason for the promotion of hateful discrimination. Oh there have been the occasional "Bell Curve" attempts to inventing reasons, but when you look behind the facade it is always based on the promotion of a religious ideology.

Where did I make any indication of being part of left or right? What part of anything I have said is part of a big lie?

Like I said, at what point did I even suggest such a thing? Seems like thou dost protest too much me thinks. I never said YOU in any of this. But if you see your reflection, your holding the mirror.

My argument is based upon the webster definition of the word,

Perhaps you should not be so limited in your reference sources.

MSN Encarta 1. legal relationship between spouses: a legally recognized relationship, established by a civil or religious ceremony, between two people who intend to live together as sexual and domestic partners 2. specific marriage relationship: a married relationship between two people, or a somebody's relationship with his or her spouse 3. joining in wedlock: the joining together in wedlock of two people

 

No specific dual gender requirements in any one of them.

 

Online Etymology Dictionary marry (interj.)a common oath in the Middle Ages, c.1350, now obsolete, a corruption of the name of the Virgin Mary.

 

Marriage - "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]

 

Ultralingua Online Dictionary marriage n. marriages <'mErâj> 1. State of being husband and wife; "a long and happy marriage"; 2. The act of marrying; the nuptial ceremony; "their marriage was conducted in the chapel"; 3. A close and intimate union; "the marriage of music and dance"; "a marriage of ideas."

and how that gives meaning to the laws written using that word. You can rant about religious conspiracy until pigs fly, and I am sure that you will, but I fail to see how anything you listed has anything to do with the arguments I have made.

I love your ad hominems. As I stated, what makes you think my post was targetted specifically at you? There is nothing in my earlier post that would indicate it other than using a VERY SMALL SNIP of your comment to luanch from. No other reference or personal attacks. I guess I'll continue to leave that up to you.

So, when people have been using the word marriage for the past 230 years, none of them knew the real definiion?

Can't say I asked all of them You? But it is a nice combo of Argumentum ad antiquitatem (it's old) and Argumentum ad numerum ( and lots of people agree) with perhaps a touch of Argumentum ad ignorantiam thrown in.

 

BTW, they are all FALLACIES of argument.

Or if the meaning has changed, does that mandate that the wording of laws be updated to be consistant with the intent of the original, or the new social paradygm?

Perhaps we should go back to the good ole days when Christians were thrown to the lions? Oh perhaps you did not mean that far back, just till blacks could be killed for looking at a white woman? Or perhaps, just perhaps, we have become CIVILIZED enough that tying a gay man to a fence's gate and killing him is concidered wrong?

[Freethinker]

Multiple definitions of the same word. Moot point.

Ya, especially when they disprove your stance I take it. Obviously the only defintions of any value are ones that agree with your personal preconcieved notions

[cwes99_03]

Freethinker. Plesae see the earlier post of mine that shows the etymology of various words surrounding the term marriage. These simply go back about 1000 years and all of them connect to husband and wife in some way.

 

Even in the Encarta dictionary reference you make it says him or her, referring to gender recognition.

[Freethinker]

Maybe homosexual couples would shut up about being afforded equal rights if we promised them 40 acres and a mule. Whatdya think!

Do you have any idea what they would do to that ***?

 

Marry it perhaps?

 

At least that is what I hear would be next if we let "them" marry!

[Freethinker]

Even in the Encarta dictionary reference you make it says him or her, referring to gender recognition.

It says:

 

"his or her spouse"

 

It does not state one of each. HIS spouse could be a HIM as well as HER spouse could be a HER.

[C1ay]

BTW, where does the law stand on hermaphrodites marrying each other? Many hermaphrodites are surgically altered to make them male or female at birth. If two hermaphrodites that have both been surgically altered to be male or female want to marry what counts in assessing the legality, their natural born state or their surgically altered state?

[Freethinker]

BTW, where does the law stand on hermaphrodites marrying each other? Many hermaphrodites are surgically altered to make them male or female at birth. If two hermaphrodites that have both been surgically altered to be male or female want to marry what counts in assessing the legality, their natural born state or their surgically altered state?

Or what if one out of a married hetero couple has a sex change? Does that invalidate the marriage? Or conversly, a transexual marries what was the same sex but is now not? Is it the birth gender or the current physical elements?

 

Actually my biggest question is why do so many people still hate others? Why do the narrow minded what to impose their narrow minds on others? And why has the US fallen so far from the ideals of PERSONAL FREEDOM as to be allowing it to happen! Disgusting!