Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
NJ Court Recognizes Same-sex Unions  
User currently offlineDtwclipper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2563 times:

TRENTON, New Jersey (AP) -- New Jersey's Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that same-sex couples are entitled to the same rights as heterosexual couples.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/10/25/jersey.samesex.ap/index.html

136 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineTrekster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2562 times:

At last,

America sees sense
Good one


User currently offlineSearpqx From Netherlands, joined Jun 2000, 4343 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2553 times:

Interesting way to go, especially in an emotionally charged issue like this. Basically saying they deserve the same rights, but leaving it up to the Legislature to define how its implemented. Be interesting to see how they handle it.


"The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity"
User currently offlineTWFirst From Vatican City, joined Apr 2000, 6346 posts, RR: 52
Reply 3, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2523 times:

Quoting Searpqx (Reply 2):
Interesting way to go, especially in an emotionally charged issue like this. Basically saying they deserve the same rights, but leaving it up to the Legislature to define how its implemented. Be interesting to see how they handle it

Exact same thing that happened in Vermont. Hopefully, this time, the state legislature will interpret the ruling as it is intended and authorize same-sex marriage licenses to be issued.



An unexamined life isn't worth living.
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2523 times:

Quoting Trekster (Reply 1):
At last,

America sees sense
Good one

But they did it in the way that most conservatives are OK with. Yes, in principle they should have the same priviledges, but it is the elected legislature which must write the law. Whether it will be called marriage or civil union will be up to the legislature. The court recognized that it is not the place of the court to write law. Which is what we conservatives wanted.

Good decision.


User currently offlineGilligan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2517 times:

Quoting Searpqx (Reply 2):
but leaving it up to the Legislature to define how its implemented

Finally a court with a common sense to realize that it is up to legislators to legislate. That was more of a victory than the decision itself. In regards to the decision it just upholds the lower courts decisions and the thrust is to deny outright marriage and continue to allow civil unions. One other matter..

Gay marriage supporters have had a two-year losing streak, striking out in state courts in New York and Washington state and in ballot boxes in 15 states where constitutions have been amended to ban same-sex unions.

If the last part of that doesn't tell gays something, then I don't know what will stop a Constitutional amendment from passing in record time. Sometimes it's just best to leave a sleeping dog lie.


User currently offlineAndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2510 times:

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 4):
Whether it will be called marriage or civil union will be up to the legislature. The court recognized that it is not the place of the court to write law. Which is what we conservatives wanted.

 checkmark 

This is all about semantics and meanings of words. I know no conservatives who would be against a 'civil union' as compared to those who oppose 'gay marriage'. To point it out, heterosexual and homosexual people in the US already have restrictions on whom they marry. Marriage is not denied to gay people (I have a few example of gay people marrying someone of the opposite sex for immigration purposes), there are restrictions placed on all of us as to whom we can marry.

We should all just simply say that civil unions is a good compromise solution and then move on.


User currently offlineTWFirst From Vatican City, joined Apr 2000, 6346 posts, RR: 52
Reply 7, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2507 times:

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 5):
If the last part of that doesn't tell gays something, then I don't know what will stop a Constitutional amendment from passing in record time. Sometimes it's just best to leave a sleeping dog lie.

You would feel quite differently if this issue personally affected you, which it does not. And it does tell us something alright... it tells us that most of this country is hypocritical and cannot tell the difference between equalizing legal benefits for its citizens (supposedly a core tenet of our country), and a religious ceremony... but I think that's an area where the marriage equality camp could have done a better job.

At its very simplest, its gender discrimination, plain and simple. But the good news is a constitutional amendment will NOT pass "in record time". It won't pass at all. Especially after congress changes hands here in a couple weeks.



An unexamined life isn't worth living.
User currently offlineBushpilot From South Africa, joined Jul 2007, 0 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2503 times:

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 6):
We should all just simply say that civil unions is a good compromise solution and then move on.

As long as the civil union is granted the same rights a hetero-couple would be afforded with tax breaks, job benefits etc then I am fine with civil unions or whatever you want to call it. The bottom line is that the constitutional amendments that have passed in many states, are state sponsored discrimination. Hopefully when the tide turns on Penn. Ave in 08, there will be some national legislation allowing for civil unions.


User currently offlineGilligan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2481 times:

Quoting TWFirst (Reply 7):
You would feel quite differently if this issue personally affected you,

But it does... I am opposed to gay marriage on several levels.

Quoting TWFirst (Reply 7):
(supposedly a core tenet of our country),

Where in the Constitution does it say that just because you decide to sleep with someone of the same sex that you are automaticaly granted the right to be married to that person? Meanwhile, the concept of marraige, a union between a man and woman, with at least one of the purposes being pro creation, stretches back to the very begining of civilasation without any regard to religion.


User currently offlineJpetekYXMD80 From United States of America, joined exactly 11 years ago today! , 4382 posts, RR: 27
Reply 10, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2474 times:

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 9):
But it does...

Oh really, how?

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 5):

If the last part of that doesn't tell gays something, then I don't know what will stop a Constitutional amendment from passing in record time. Sometimes it's just best to leave a sleeping dog lie.

I'd really like to know the causation between state referenda and their effect on amending the US Constitution....



The Best Care in the Air, 1984-2009
User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13040 posts, RR: 12
Reply 11, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2462 times:

The court ordered the NJ State Legislature that within 180 days to change the laws to conform to total equal rights of same gender couples to marriage or the equivalent with the name civil unions or still call it marriage.
What I am concerned with are 2 important issues:
1) That public officials who have the power of the State to perform civil marriages, unless they decline to preform any civil marriages, would be legally ordered to perform same sex civil marriages/civil unions, even if same sex unions would be in offense for their personal faith beliefs.
2) Religious organizations and their owned or controlled institutions like churches/temples/mosques, adoption and foster home organizations, Hospitals, social services, may have to offer for example the same health care and pension benefits to same gender couples, even though such unions cannot be recognized due their faith beliefs as they do to heterosexual marriages.
Any change in the laws must allow for conscious refusal or exemptions as to the cirucmstances as I noted above.


User currently offlineAndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2462 times:

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 8):
As long as the civil union is granted the same rights a hetero-couple...

I think that has already been granted in some areas and should be granted in others as well.

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 8):
there will be some national legislation allowing for civil unions

Probably, as long as that is the legal definition.

Quoting TWFirst (Reply 7):
At its very simplest, its gender discrimination, plain and simple.

Not at all. Even us heterosexuals in the US have accepted restrictions on our right to marriage, I cannot marry my sister, someone underage, or additional women if I felt like it. A gay person in the US has the same marriage rights that I have, no different. You would end this by allowing civil unions.


User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2458 times:

Quoting TWFirst (Reply 7):
And it does tell us something alright... it tells us that most of this country is hypocritical and cannot tell the difference between equalizing legal benefits for its citizens (supposedly a core tenet of our country), and a religious ceremony...

That is an old problem - the state (not only in the US, but in almost every country) got involved in marriage, which is rooted in religion. The state decided a traditional marriage would not be recognized by the state you had to be married by a state-appointed person.

In many countries, the two are completely seperated. In Switzerland, I had my state wedding at the town hall, and we had our religious wedding 2 days later.

In America, it's even more confusing, because the state marriage and the religious wedding are normally combined. But people should remember that they are two completely different events. One is the traditional marriage, which is a promise to each other and God, and the other is the civil union where the state recognizes two people wanting to live together permenantly.

Unfortunately the state has called it's activity marriage as well, instead of civil union or something like that, and it is this userpation that gives rise to the problems today.

I don't know of a single conservative that objects to a civil union between gays, with all the tax breaks and everything that heterosexual couples get. But we just don't want it to be called marriage. Marriage is a tradition that has been around for 10,000 years or more, and you can't just throw it on its ear without getting people very upset. So why do it?


User currently offlineLowrider From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 3220 posts, RR: 10
Reply 14, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2457 times:

I used to think that this was a states rights issue and that was how it should be solved. While this may be what happens, I no longer think it is the best way. I think the government, at all levels, needs to get out of the marriage business. By that I mean there is no longer a legal status called married. Simplify the tax code so there is no longer a distinction there either. All property and decision making issues should be resolved by contracts and powers of attorney. Leave marriage ceremonies up to the churches. When I look back at my wedding, the signing of the documents to make everything official was such a small, insignificant part anyway. The vows we took before God, friends, and family were far more important. I have become convinced that all the laws and court rulings just lead to greater government intrusion and less freedom overall.


Proud OOTSK member
User currently offlineJaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2457 times:

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 5):
Finally a court with a common sense to realize that it is up to legislators to legislate. That was more of a victory than the decision itself. In regards to the decision it just upholds the lower courts decisions and the thrust is to deny outright marriage and continue to allow civil unions.

Actually, that was the opinion of the NY Court as also the MA Court. While the MA Court did not spell this out (being the first Court to rule on the issue of gay marriage favorably), that was implicit in the decision. Courts after the MA decision have spelled this out keeping political realities in mind.

Now lets see how Kean exploits this in a very tough election battle, and what scarface, I mean Menendez, has to say in rebuttal.


User currently offlineLuv2fly From United States of America, joined May 2003, 12090 posts, RR: 49
Reply 16, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2443 times:

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 9):
But it does... I am opposed to gay marriage on several levels.

Then stay out of NJ. And since you are most likely "straight" fear not we will resist the urge to convert you.



You can cut the irony with a knife
User currently offlineBCAInfoSys From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2433 times:

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 9):
Meanwhile, the concept of marraige, a union between a man and woman, with at least one of the purposes being pro creation, stretches back to the very begining of civilasation without any regard to religion.

Sorry Gilligan, you're a good guy but I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Marriage is FAR from a stagnant institution. It has changed numerous times over the eons.

I wrote a paper on the subject several months ago. I addressed this specific issue. I'll post the paper here for commentary (sorry, the images/graphs are missing. But you'll get the jist of what I'm trying to say.)

***********************************

The ‘Defense of Marriage’ – A Hollow Argument



4/6/2006

Marriage: the premiere social institution which exists as the basic structure of western culture and family definition. Marriage remains today, as it has for thousands of years, the pinnacle of human relationships; the ultimate testament of love between two people. The institution of marriage however has not been stagnant; it is a dynamic, evolving structure which has changed throughout the eons to adapt to societal values. The debate over what defines a marriage is raging again today; about whether or not the benefits of marriage should be extended to same-sex couples. Given the spirit of equality that this country was founded on, the ideals to which we all aspire to; it is only right and proper that marriage should once again evolve to include same-sex couples. The moralistic “Defense of Marriage” counter-movement is not only morally-indefensible; it will ultimately fall to challenges in our justice system.

The history of marriage dates back to writings in the Old Testament and ancient Egypt, the oldest known writings which indicate of a sworn partnership between two people. For the first few thousand years, marriage represented virtual imprisonment for women in patriarchal societies. During these times, marriage was not so much a partnership as it was man’s dominion over women. Marriage represented a man “owning” his wife, as if she were property which existed solely for his benefit. It was not until the beginning of the twentieth century that this antiquated system began to change. Thanks to the Women’s Suffrage movement, marriage became less like a dictatorial system and more of a partnership.

At one point in the first half of the twentieth century, 40 states had laws on the books which prohibited the marriage of a person of Caucasian descent to “a person of color.” Interracial marriages were deemed to be “immoral and unnatural.” The origins of the Civil Rights Movement began with the 1948 California State Supreme Court ruling which declared the ban on interracial marriages to be unconstitutional. This was the first victory in the movement which climaxed with the 1967 US Supreme Court ruling in Loving v. Virginia:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State. (Sec. II, Par. 2)


So given the context of this historical evolution, is it not reasonable to extend the benefits of marriage once again to same-sex couples? The spirit of the 1967 ruling may well prove to be the legal basis for overturning prohibitions of same-sex marriages. Marriage existing as “one of the basic civil rights of man” should be extended to all persons, regardless of their chosen legal partner. The basic tenant of the ruling is that marriages cannot be prohibited on the basis of traits which are beyond a person’s control, such as race or sexual orientation. There are some religious groups which believe that sexual orientation is a choice, however this has been firmly refuted by the American Psychological Association (APA):

No, human beings cannot choose to be either gay or straight. For most people, sexual orientation emerges in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed (Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality).


So to evaluate the merits of the “Defense of Marriage” arguments, we must first take a look at how “traditional” marriage is faring. Quite poorly is the simple answer. In the last 50 years, the percentage of married-couple households has plummeted from just under 80% to around 50%. At the same time, the number of households headed by unmarried heterosexual couples has skyrocketed, as illustrated by the following charts. In the twenty-five year period from 1977 – 2002, the number of opposite-sex unmarried couples jumped from 1 million all the way to 5 million. While divorce numbers seem to be leveling off, it is the rate of straight couples with children who cohabitate without ever marrying that is alarming.



To evaluate why “traditional” marriage is losing the position it once had, several factors need to be considered. First, marriage in yesteryear was often one of the only ways to ensure financial stability for women and children. However with ever-increasing opportunities for women as well as readily-available education options, women are not forced into marriage solely for financial stability. Second, technology has enabled information to be much more readily available, resulting in younger generations that are much better informed about marriage and what it entails before taking their vows. With better access to education and financial opportunities, many modern committed couples are electing to live together in domestic partnerships without entering into a marriage which many today view as “confining”.

So given the facts about traditional marriage, why the crusade to save it? In its current form, is marriage worth saving? Or will the institution of marriage be validated further by extending it to all loving partnerships, regardless of sexual orientation? What exactly is the “Defense of Marriage” campaign trying to defend marriage from? All of these logical questions seemingly go unanswered by this counter-movement.

Many of the arguments which fuel this discrimination are morally subjective and not universally accepted. However, there are many of their arguments which can be refuted logically without straying into the murky realm of religion and morality, which is ambiguous at best. The following paragraphs are an attempt to put to bed some of the myths surrounding same sex-couples.

“Homosexual partnerships don’t provide a good atmosphere for raising children.” This blatantly discriminatory statement was put to the test in the Hawaii State Supreme Court in Baehr v. Miike. In testimony from numerous witnesses for both the plaintiffs and the defense, the court heard testimony that same-sex partners make equal and in some case superior parents then traditional couples. In evaluations from the children’s teachers, the children raised by same sex parents showed no difference from the other children in regard to all relevant issues including intelligence, self-confidence, popularity, etc.

“If same-sex marriage is legalized, you’re setting up a slippery slope where the legalization of polygamy, bestiality, and all sorts of other deviant behavior is sure to follow.” The “slippery slope” argument is a common argument that has been used for years to prey on the natural fear of the unknown. It is a baseless argument which has no bearing. There has been absolutely no evidence of increased rates of “other deviant behavior” or efforts to legalize said behavior in the countries which have legalized same-sex marriage. Countries such as Canada, Holland, and France have extended the benefits and protections of marriage to all consenting, loving adults and the repercussions often foretold by religious groups having failed to materialize.

“Marriage shouldn’t be changed; it has lasted as it is for thousands of years.” First, marriage has not gone unchanged for thousands of years, it has changed several times to grow and change with society. As discussed previously, Women’s Suffrage and the Civil Rights Movement both fundamentally changed the nature of marriage; so why should homosexual equality be any different? Second, even if marriage had gone unchanged, to assert that it shouldn’t be changed just because it is tradition is a logical fallacy; argumentum ad antiquitatem. Just because the institution of marriage is old, does not mean it is perfect. War, bigotry, and slavery all have existed for thousands of years; do they need to be protected from change as well?

What should marriage really be about? Is marriage solely a financially and procreative association? Is it something that should be used to exclude others solely because of prejudice and fear of the unknown? No, that is not what marriage should be. Marriage should represent the ultimate commitment to another human being. Matrimony is a promise to be together through good and bad, enduring all trials, and sharing your love together for your lifetimes. Marriage should remain the pinnacle of our social structures, but it should do so all inclusively. All true love is equal and should be celebrated by all equally, not at the expense of certain groups. So we must ask ourselves, who really gains if the “Defense of Marriage” movement succeeds? The only ones who benefit are those close-minded individuals who wish to remain isolated in their own imagined self-righteousness. The repression of groups based solely on their sexual orientation serves only to profit those who would exclude homosexuals; namely fundamentalist religious organizations. Thus, it is only a manner of time before our society realizes that to subjugate entire classes of people based only on their sexual preference is not only utterly wrong, but completely contrary to the ideals on which our justice system has been built.


Works Cited


“Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality.” 2004. American Psychology Association.
6 Apr. 2006 http://www.apahelpcenter.org/articles/article.php?id=31

Loving v. Virginia, Case Number 388, Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia, 12 June 1967. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...etcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1

Baehr v. Miike, Case Number 20371, Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii, 9 Dec. 1999. http://www.hawaii.gov/jud/20371.htm

Masci, David. “Future of Marriage: Is traditional matrimony going out of style?” CQ Researcher 14 (2004): 397-420.

Lipkin, Robert J. “The Harm of Same Sex Marriage: Real or Imagined?”
Widener Law Review 11 (2005): 277-308.

“Same-Sex Marriage: A Selective Bibliography of the Legal Literature.” Ed. Paul Axel-Lute. 31 Mar. 2006. 7 Apr. 2006 http://law-library.rutgers.edu/SSM.html


User currently offlineNkops From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2660 posts, RR: 6
Reply 18, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2425 times:

I hope this comes up for a vote in NJ, let the citizens decide what the defenition of marriage is, not the lawmakers.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 13):
Marriage is a tradition that has been around for 10,000 years or more, and you can't just throw it on its ear without getting people very upset.

 checkmark 

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 6):
We should all just simply say that civil unions is a good compromise solution and then move on.

That'll never happen... it's an all or nothing scenario. Gays will not be happy unless they get marriage rights, and religious sects won't be happy until it is completely abolished.

Quoting TWFirst (Reply 7):
You would feel quite differently if this issue personally affected you,

But it does, its against my beliefs, therefore it affects me.



I have no association with Spirit Airlines
User currently offlineJaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2420 times:

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 6):
We should all just simply say that civil unions is a good compromise solution and then move on.

Agree. But many opponents of gay marriage (at least the ones who are in power) want to ban gay marriage and any other alliances that closely approximate it.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 13):
I don't know of a single conservative that objects to a civil union between gays, with all the tax breaks and everything that heterosexual couples get.

Then you must not know too many conservatives.


User currently offlineBCAInfoSys From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2417 times:

Quoting Nkops (Reply 18):
I hope this comes up for a vote in NJ, let the citizens decide what the defenition of marriage is, not the lawmakers.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 13):
Marriage is a tradition that has been around for 10,000 years or more, and you can't just throw it on its ear without getting people very upset.

checkmark

Read what I wrote.. marriage has NOT BEEN A STAGNANT INSTITUTION. It has changed many times to reflect the times. It needs to do so again. Just because it's against your beliefs doesn't mean a thing. You have no right to force your beliefs on to others. Whatever happened to tolerance and acceptance?

Steve
*Straight But Not Narrow*


User currently offlineJpetekYXMD80 From United States of America, joined exactly 11 years ago today! , 4382 posts, RR: 27
Reply 21, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2408 times:

Quoting Nkops (Reply 18):
let the citizens decide what the defenition of marriage is, not the lawmakers.

Yeah, because its not like its their job to make laws! You and Gilligan need to realize state referendums don't make U.S. Constitutional amendments, which it will eventually come down to. First, its that the judiciary should not be making the laws, and now its the legislative body that shouldn't be making the laws!! Its blatantly obvious that you have no regard for the proper means to go about this measure, only the most favorable means to come to your desirable outcome. If the general public was tilted for the most part in the other direction, I know you sure wouldn't be all 'let the citizens decide!!!'. Give me a break.

Quoting Nkops (Reply 18):

But it does, its against my beliefs, therefore it affects me.

Ha, right. If it's against your beliefs, then don't get one. The U.S. Constitution doesn't give a shit about enforcing your beliefs.

[Edited 2006-10-26 00:27:02]


The Best Care in the Air, 1984-2009
User currently offlineLowrider From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 3220 posts, RR: 10
Reply 22, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2403 times:

Quoting BCAInfoSys (Reply 20):
You have no right to force your beliefs on to others.

Like the belief that marriage needs to be rewritten?



Proud OOTSK member
User currently offlineNkops From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2660 posts, RR: 6
Reply 23, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2400 times:

Quoting BCAInfoSys (Reply 20):
You have no right to force your beliefs on to others. Whatever happened to tolerance and acceptance?

I'm not forcing my beliefs on anybody, nearly stating my beliefs just like this person

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 9):
But it does... I am opposed to gay marriage on several levels.

And that is protected under the first amendment, just like gays speaking their beliefs to have gay marriage is protected.

Tolerance and acceptance is not acceptable when it sacrifices your belief system.

P.S. what grade did you get on the paper, although I don't agree with all of it, I must say it is very well written.



I have no association with Spirit Airlines
User currently offlineBCAInfoSys From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2382 times:

Quoting Nkops (Reply 23):
Tolerance and acceptance is not acceptable when it sacrifices your belief system.

Think about it this way, homosexuals firmly believe that they are equal and should be treated equally. So whose beliefs get to trump the other's? In a situation like this, I believe that the choice which results in the highest level of liberty and personal choice must prevail. If two sides disagree, a reasonable country must choose the side which most upholds the highest tenants of our legal system; equality and non-discrimination for all.

Quoting Nkops (Reply 23):
P.S. what grade did you get on the paper, although I don't agree with all of it, I must say it is very well written.

I got a perfect A. And thank you, it speaks well of you that you can at least debate without getting into mudslinging.

[Edited 2006-10-26 00:45:17]

25 Charger : What specifically? I'm a straight male, been married for 16 years, and I'm catholic, and it doesn't bother me. Let them get married and have the same
26 JpetekYXMD80 : Uh, ok, go ahead and play the first amendment card.... When has anyone tried to take away your rights to say it? It's merely the evaluation of your b
27 Post contains images BCAInfoSys : So following your logic: - Women should be the personal property of their husbands - Women should not be allowed to vote - Racial minorities should n
28 Nkops : Your welcome.... no reason for mudslinging, it's a debate and thats it, nothing I say on here will change the world. The whole reason for this site i
29 Post contains links BCAInfoSys : I found the original paper. Here's a link to the Word document complete with formatting and graphs. Please, everyone: take a moment to read it and com
30 Lowrider : I said nothing of the sort. You are attempting to box me in and throwing out distracting ideas in an attempt to divert attention from the fact that y
31 Halls120 : Congratulations to the NJ Supreme Court for recognizing that it is up to the legislature to write laws, not the courts, and for affirming that homose
32 Post contains images Searpqx : As a practical matter, I tend to agree with you both. My heart and emotions would like to see one civil status that applies to hetero and homo couple
33 Post contains images Boeing744 : It is the opposite situation here in Canada. Harper's Conservative gov't is trying to reopen the marriage debate, but you don't hear them calling for
34 Boeing744 : Exactly. You're not getting forced to marry another man, nor are your rights to marry a woman taken away.
35 BCAInfoSys : Yes, I took a jab at religion. Ask yourself, who else truly benefits by marginalizing and excluding a segment of our population? When discrimination
36 Lowrider : This is also an interesting arguement, since homosexuals wishing to marry are a minority. If I dug up a few polls showing that the majority of the co
37 Boeing744 : Well, that would be the same case with slavery, racial seregation, women's suffrage, etc. back when those were hot issues. Why is this issue any diff
38 Post contains images BCAInfoSys : Look at what I said before. when we have two differing points of view; a reasonable country must always side with the path which allows for the most
39 Lowrider : It's not, but he was making the case that a religious minority is opposing the majority with thier beliefs. I was simply making the point that the sa
40 Bushpilot : I guess to me it doesnt matter what you call it. We are talking about two people who are in love and intimate with each other,based around the format
41 Post contains images Basas : Yes, many of us do. I think the vote would be much closer than you think... Exactly. [Edited 2006-10-26 02:09:49]
42 ShakeZulaNJ : How exactly does this impact you? Furthermore, why are you opposed to it? Is it the marriage part? Or do you just consider gays to be second class ci
43 Cfalk : I know plenty, but none of them are religious bible-thumpers, who are your main opposition. It is the Gay Rights people who are trying to force their
44 Vikkyvik : Sorry dude, but that makes a whole lotta nonsense. Firstly, one does not have to sacrifice one's belief system simply due to someone else wishing to
45 Halls120 : What I find amusing about all the angst emanating from opponents to same sex marriage is that before long, civil unions will no longer be separate bu
46 Kiramakora : AndesSMF: You really believe this?
47 BCAInfoSys : First of all, what does it matter what it's called? And why shouldn't gay unions be exactly equal those of heterosexual unions? Take Loving v. Virgin
48 Searpqx : I was pretty much with you, right up until this statement. No arguing that there are some extremists in the gay rights movement who do fit this (just
49 TWFirst : Yes there are restrictions, but discrimination based on gender is not allowed by law, and gender is the ONLY difference between an opposite sex coupl
50 Post contains links Boeing744 : . . . . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-se...Canada#Acceptance_among_population
51 Fumanchewd : I guess this means that everyone will go to the EWR a.net meet now. We'll just make it sort of a huge Reverand Moon marriage.
52 Post contains images Gilligan : As stated my belief is that marriage is for a man and woman, one of the prime reasons being for pro creation. When Johnny and Johnny can have a child
53 Basas : " target=_blank>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-se...ation Your polls show how many people want the issue brought up again. The question is, IF the
54 Post contains images Boeing744 : And this would all be the fault of the homosexuals I assume?
55 Boeing744 : Exactly. Now people have changed their minds, seeing how little it really affects straight people. We're talking about now, not years ago.
56 Post contains images BCAInfoSys : Gilligan - Since when is having children a requirement for a successful marriage? I know MANY married couples who are among the happiest, most devoted
57 Post contains images N1120A : Just one state. 46 more to go I believe. Do you really think 3/4ths of the state legislatures will get majorities or supermajorities passing that kin
58 Searpqx : You're all over the board on this one - First you argue that marriage must be maintained for reasons that are intrinsically religious (pro-creation),
59 BCAInfoSys : N1120A - Your post is 110% correct. I wish I could add you to my RU list a 2nd time. Thank god for rational human beings. They do still exist in this
60 Cfalk : All that matters is that you know that I and others believe that there is a significance in the name. You might not understand that. That's OK, I don
61 N1120A : Well, with all that indefinate money, you can fly down to MSY and hang out with the crowd here.
62 Post contains links and images BCAInfoSys : I don't understand it either, it's not my bag. But I'm not going to deny them their opportunity to be happy. Live and let live, right? I didn't say i
63 AndesSMF : Yes. But you and I share the same restrictions on marriage. You are asking for additional rights that I wont have. Look, I personally have no opposit
64 N1120A : May is a bad month, and the later the better.
65 Gilligan : Because of Article 4 section one, the full faith and credit clause. I can't tell you what to do but I can vote to elect a Representative that will re
66 Gilligan : Then by your logic bigamy, and pologamy should be legalized as well as long as consenting adults agree to it.
67 Halls120 : I see you don't get the point of my post. No surprise there. If a "civil union" under the laws of State A give a couple the exact same rights as a "m
68 Vikkyvik : In my nonprofessional opinion, that's a textbook example of sheer insecurity. Your reaction is automatically extremely defensive, for absolutely no r
69 Basas : Um...very few people have changed their minds. As your poll says, nearly 40% still want to visit the issue, and I'm sure most of the rest just figure
70 Basas : Exactly. Again, in complete agreement!
71 N1120A : Rest of us? It is the office you claim to work for that will undertake defending DOMA once challenged. I posted the relevant section of the 14th Amen
72 Gilligan : Unfortunately it is getting defensive about something I do understand, tradition for starters. It's not insecure to want to maintain an institution t
73 Cfalk : Please explain how the 14th amendment applies to homosexuality (I gotta hear this!)
74 N1120A : Um, did you read it? "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person wit
75 Searpqx : How so? Should Gay Marriage/Civil Unions be allowed nation-wide, you would be able to enter into one should you desire. Currently the reverse does no
76 Boeing744 : Well, I don't expect the majority of the straight population to get up and start fighting for equal marriage. Most people I know just think that yeah
77 Basas : Who exactly is to say society was not 'negatively impacted'? How do you measure that? Personally, yes, I think society WAS negatively impacted, and i
78 Boeing744 : Yeah, and how do you measure that it is? Name ONE thing in your daily life that has been negatively affected by equal marriage. You say that society
79 Searpqx : That's just it - its your opinion, whereas when I say society hasn't been impacted, I'm basing it on the fact that there is not one single negative s
80 Post contains images N1120A : Yeah, budget surpluses and a steadily growing economy absolutely suck as does not being pushed around by anyone.
81 Post contains images AndesSMF : I can marry someone of the opposite sex, and so can you. I cannot marry someone of the same sex, and neither can you. With a civil union, we can both
82 JpetekYXMD80 : Ha!, because of gay marriage!! What a sad, sad argument.
83 Post contains links AndesSMF : Not because of gay marriage, but an overall lack in promoting marriage and healthy families. The unspoken issue is 'sub-replacement fertility'. http:
84 Boeing744 : Corrected by AndresSMF, because I didn't read closely enough... please delete.[Edited 2006-10-26 06:40:44]
85 N1120A : Sub-replacement fertility is a GOOD thing, I only wish it was (in reality) happening in the US.
86 AndesSMF : Did you miss this? It depends on the welfare system that you have. If you have less people coming into the workforce, and more retired people relying
87 JpetekYXMD80 : All that needs to be said. How gay marriage gets into that conversation alone is beyond me. Do you expect the gay people to go start poppin' them out
88 Boeing744 : Whoops! I noticed that afterwards... my apologies.
89 AndesSMF : Some can. For the rest, I certainly hope most committed couples have adoption in mind. Playing devils advocate, gay couples should get together with
90 JpetekYXMD80 : I've always seen that as a hypocritical element of the anti-abortion gang when they try to place stringent restrictions on adoption, usually citing t
91 AndesSMF : Same here.
92 N1120A : What you do is stop robbing from government retirement programs to balance budgets and pay bills for over-inflated pork programs. You have national h
93 AndesSMF : Partly true. As you should know, the retirees with their current benefits are taking more out of the program than they put in, regardless of whether
94 Mohavewolfpup : so let me get this straight. what I do in my bedroom with my future partner or holding his hand at 37,000 feet on a airplane telling him I love him i
95 Glydrflyr : What an interesting, passionate thread this is!! Let's go all the way back to the beginning of recorded history, and what we know of marriage at that
96 Halls120 : I say that putting the issue of fundamental human rights to a vote is absurd. Had we adopted that tactic over the past 200 years, slavery would still
97 57AZ : I would also note that one of the concerns pertaining to the myriad of legislation permitting/prohibiting same-sex marriage/unions is the possible app
98 Post contains images Gilligan : When you can show me the science where two men or two women can have a child without a third party being involved, a child that contains no biologica
99 Glydrflyr : Presumptive speculation only, no value to current discussion. How could you POSSIBLY come up with this from what I said? The right of gays to legally
100 Gilligan : And I was accused of using scare tactics. But it is involved. You can't get married without a license issued by the State. Anything issued by the Sta
101 Halls120 : Wow, some people are really touchy, aren't they? OK, I'll recast it. I say that putting the issue of fundamental human rights to a vote is absurd. Ha
102 Searpqx : But again, unless you're willing to say that the ONLY acceptable way reproduce is 'naturally' and all other methods (in vitro, surrogate, etc) are pr
103 Gilligan : I don't see this as an issue of human rights fundamental or otherwise. A black person cannot hide who they are, a female cannot hide, forever, whom s
104 AndesSMF : C'mon, guys! We are going into the whole semantics business again! semantic: of or pertaining to meaning, esp. in language. Please notice that I still
105 Mohavewolfpup : so does heterosexual people cheating, which breaks up familys, hurts the spouse, gives kids a hard time, and more. I speak from experience on this, h
106 Texan : That's opening a can of worms, though. Then guys who have been snipped, women who have had procedures where they can no longer have children, and men
107 JpetekYXMD80 : All the value to this discussion. Legislation on majority popular opinion via referenda is just a flat out bad idea, sorry. How is it a presumptive s
108 Tootallsd : I guess if I was born black then I would still be drinking from the "colored' drinking fountain as well.
109 Searpqx : No I won't belittle you. I disagree with you and think you are fundamentally wrong on this subject, and I'm fairly certain you feel pretty much the s
110 Halls120 : You might not, but the Supreme Court does. yes, the issue was race there, but the issue of sexual preference is no different than race in this contex
111 ShakeZulaNJ : B. the grace of the green Earth, that will never happen. An amendment to the Constitution that tells one group of people they are not entitled to the
112 Gilligan : I don't mind that getting out and I have never taken the position that hetrosexual couples are better parents, but they can be parents of children wi
113 ShakeZulaNJ : I have read your posts. And I will continue to be a smart ass, thank you very much. You still haven't addressed the question of straight couples that
114 Gilligan : No you have not or you would have read this... Hows it feel to be a dumb a--?
115 Post contains images Texan : I disagree with you, but what else is new It was worth a shot, though! Texan
116 ShakeZulaNJ : No you have not or you would have read this... Quoting Gilligan (Reply 52): To those that would say what of those that can't have children, are too ol
117 Gilligan : I don't know how much plainer it can be. Do you have a nose on your face?
118 Halls120 : Ah, the old slippery slope pretty soon we'll have humans marrying animals argument. That opponents to extending the right to marry to all citizens ha
119 Dtwclipper : Well, I started this thread, and let it go, but now it's time to respond in general terms as to why formal recognition is important. 1. I resent the c
120 ShakeZulaNJ : Yes, I do, and it's smelling something foul from your posts. You attempts at insulting me are lame at best. And your argument about "equipment" doesn
121 Gilligan : That's not necessarily true, my wife and I have wills. If we were to both pass away at the same time my wife's sister is listed as the guardian for o
122 Dtwclipper : You missed the point. If you were to die, custody would automatically fall to your wife and vice versa without question. This is not the case with ma
123 ShakeZulaNJ : Not to long ago, it was perfectly common for women to be married off when they were 12 years old. That was the "tradition." That's changed. Most peop
124 Post contains images Boeing744 : Excellent point!
125 Gilligan : That is the reason for the will. Yes, my wife, or myself would take charge of our children, if one of us were to die, but a will specifying guardians
126 Dtwclipper : It can not. Federal pensions, Social Security benefits, etc, are still not offered. Tell me in your wisdom, why a woman who is divorced from her husb
127 ShakeZulaNJ : Arranged marriages are still cultural norms in some countries, and as far as I know, has never been illegal to begin with in the US. Just because it'
128 Gilligan : Which is why I also said.... BCAINFORSYS, SEARPQX, HALLS120, TEXAN, take note of that quote. Next time someone mentions a slippery slope I will refer
129 57AZ : You're not asking for "special" rights. All you are asking to be afforded your constitutional rights. Even though gay/homosexuals are a minority, you
130 Easyjetset : To say that I am pleased that I don't live in the states is an understatement following this post
131 Halls120 : Take note of whatever you want. That won't detract from the fact that in the United States, we deny certain rights to a portion of our citizens based
132 Gilligan : I'm still waiting for someone to detail where the U.S. Constitution covers who can and cannot marry. Any rights not enumerated in the Constitution be
133 Halls120 : If the state is going to allow some, but not all, of its citizens the right to marry and enjoy the legal benefits of that relationship, then it indee
134 N1120A : Again, did you not read what I said or did you choose to ignore it? Some make the argument that the 14th Amendment is in the context of race, yet the
135 Searpqx : And yet when the 'slippery slope' argument is used in relation to erosion of civil liberties, you discount it? You're going to need to pick a side be
136 Gilligan : Both of which, although I disagree that the 14th amendment applies to begin with, are valid reasons why I think a Constitutional amendment defining m
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Alaska Supreme Court OKs Same-Sex Benefits posted Sun Oct 30 2005 09:50:10 by Johnboy
SA Court In Favour Of Same-sex Marriages posted Thu Dec 1 2005 10:18:18 by CraigW
AFA Sues M.S.U. Over Same-sex Benefits posted Thu Jul 6 2006 01:46:23 by Dtwclipper
Same Sex Mountie Marriage posted Sat Jul 1 2006 04:57:21 by Greasespot
Quebec Priests Challenge Same-sex Stand Of Church posted Mon Feb 27 2006 18:14:30 by SKYSERVICE_330
Same-sex Marriage Demonstrations In Italy posted Sat Jan 14 2006 18:23:22 by ManuCH
Canada Passes Same Sex Marriage Bill! posted Wed Jul 20 2005 22:40:16 by KLMA330
Same-Sex Marriage OK'd In Spain posted Thu Jun 30 2005 18:28:23 by Johnboy
Canada: Same-sex Marriage Bill Is Passed. posted Wed Jun 29 2005 03:36:40 by Jean Leloup
No Same Sex Beni's For Michigan Workers posted Wed Mar 16 2005 22:10:21 by Dtwclipper