Thread Options 
|
#629608 - 10/27/06 09:18 PM
Re: NJ passes civil rights law for homosexuals
|
Power Poster
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,990
Cincinnati, OH
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
CB,
What I think is that all these people who fight giving basic rights to gay couples create a culture that allows the cruelty you have experienced to fester and grow. I hope one day our nation can move past things as insignificant as who we each choose to love and share our lives with and focus on real problems in our nation.
See here's the problem, it's not just about "who you love". It's HOW you love and what KIND of love. It's fine for a man to love a man or a woman to love a woman. It is fine for a mother to love her son. It is NOT fine for a mother to marry her son. This is an abomination against God. Allowing our government to say incest is just fine and dandy shouldn't happen. Homosexual marriages are the same.
Love all you want, but do not give out kudos for sex with whatever you want or marriage to whatever you want.
BF...just to clarify...
Please tell me you're not comparing homosexuality to incest.....???? 
Homosexuality is no different than any other deviant sexual lifestyle. I don't care if you're talking about partner swapping, incest, homosexuality, polygamy, or beastiality. Each and every one of this is immoral and should not be given a position of acceptance.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629609 - 10/27/06 09:28 PM
Re: NJ passes civil rights law for homosexuals
|
10K Club
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,244
Stuck w/Avatar
|
Rainman, IMO the DPA would be satisfactory. It seems more than any one issue, the word "marriage" is what offends opponents the most. So, it's like marriage, but it's not called "marriage." Good 'nuf?
_________________________
It's called a nap, Susan Lucci!
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629610 - 10/27/06 09:20 PM
Re: NJ passes civil rights law for homosexuals
|
Power Poster
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,121
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
CB,
What I think is that all these people who fight giving basic rights to gay couples create a culture that allows the cruelty you have experienced to fester and grow. I hope one day our nation can move past things as insignificant as who we each choose to love and share our lives with and focus on real problems in our nation.
See here's the problem, it's not just about "who you love". It's HOW you love and what KIND of love. It's fine for a man to love a man or a woman to love a woman. It is fine for a mother to love her son. It is NOT fine for a mother to marry her son. This is an abomination against God. Allowing our government to say incest is just fine and dandy shouldn't happen. Homosexual marriages are the same.
Love all you want, but do not give out kudos for sex with whatever you want or marriage to whatever you want.
BF...just to clarify...
Please tell me you're not comparing homosexuality to incest.....????
Homosexuality is no different than any other deviant sexual lifestyle. I don't care if you're talking about partner swapping, incest, homosexuality, polygamy, or beastiality. Each and every one of this is immoral and should not be given a position of acceptance.
Gambling is immoral as well, yet last I checked, nearly every state in the union particpates in gambling through lotteries or casino revenue.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629612 - 10/27/06 09:46 PM
Re: NJ passes civil rights law for homosexuals
|
10K Club
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,244
Stuck w/Avatar
|
Practice random acts of kindness.
_________________________
It's called a nap, Susan Lucci!
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629613 - 10/27/06 09:54 PM
Re: NJ passes civil rights law for homosexuals
|
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
|
Quote:
Gambling is immoral as well, yet last I checked, nearly every state in the union particpates in gambling through lotteries or casino revenue.
Was this decided by courts or ballot initiatives?
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629614 - 10/27/06 10:06 PM
Re: NJ passes civil rights law for homosexuals
|
10K Club
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 19,938
Pulling people out of the ditc...
|
Quote:
Homosexuality is no different than any other deviant sexual lifestyle. I don't care if you're talking about partner swapping, incest, homosexuality, polygamy, or beastiality. Each and every one of this is immoral and should not be given a position of acceptance.
What about where the husband and wife no longer have sex? This is against Bible teachings as well, would you classify that as immoral? Or deviant?
Your stating it is deviant does not make it so. To each his own. No one is asking you to condone this.
_________________________
Providing alternative truths since the invention of time
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629616 - 10/27/06 11:07 PM
Re: NJ passes civil rights law for homosexuals
|
Power Poster
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,121
|
Quote:
Quote:
Gambling is immoral as well, yet last I checked, nearly every state in the union particpates in gambling through lotteries or casino revenue.
Was this decided by courts or ballot initiatives?
Both actually; some court cases have overturned state laws prohibiting gambling on reservations, or placing limits on types of gambling.
However, I mentioned this to demonstrate Michael's argument was arguing that nothing immoral should be given the legal authority is fallacious.
The legality of gambling is not pertinent to your argument regarding the court's overreach.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629617 - 10/28/06 12:02 AM
Re: NJ passes civil rights law for homosexuals
|
10K Club
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 10,395
Jersey Shore
|
Quote:
My question still is, if the Domestic Partnership Act can be amended to confer all of the benefits available in marriage, why would that not be satisfactory?
In another part of the discussion that I didn't quote, one of the Justices said something to the effect that, even if the DPA could be amended in the way you are asking about, it would result in two government sanctioned relationships (marriage and something else) that were in effect 'separate but equal'. Further the U.S. Supreme court had held that 'separate but equal' was an untenable state.
So it seems they are going with a rational approach; allowing same gender couples to marry would;
* confer all the attendant rights and priveleges without the legislative overhead
* allow the state to be in compliance with its own laws.
* not harm, diminish or delete the rights, protections and priveleges enjoyed by mixed gender couples.
Following Occam's Razor, it's the simplest solution.
Now I'll ask you a question; Can you enumerate any rights, privileges or protections enjoyed by mixed gender couples that would be diminished or taken away if the same priveleges were extended to same sex couples?
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629618 - 10/28/06 12:14 AM
Re: NJ passes civil rights law for homosexuals
|
10K Club
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 10,395
Jersey Shore
|
BF wrote about homosexuality: Quote:
This is an abomination against God.
So, BF, how do you feel about:
seafood restaurants,
oyster bars,
church barbecue suppers,
grocery stores,
barber shops,
tattoo parlors,
clothing made of mixed wool, cotton, polyester, and other materials
the daily horoscope in the newspaper?
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629619 - 10/28/06 12:57 AM
Re: NJ passes civil rights law for homosexuals
|
Power Poster
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,275
|
Quote:
In another part of the discussion that I didn't quote, one of the Justices said something to the effect that, even if the DPA could be amended in the way you are asking about, it would result in two government sanctioned relationships (marriage and something else) that were in effect 'separate but equal'. Further the U.S. Supreme court had held that 'separate but equal' was an untenable state.
1) Notwithstanding that particular justice's comment, the court still indicated that in this case "separate but equal" would be acceptable.
2) This case was decided under the NJ Constitution, not the US Constitution. Therefore the U.S. Supreme Court decision you reference is inapplicable; thus, the decision this week that permits separate but equal.
Moreover, if you want to get into it, in Brown v. Board of Education (the case you're referring to) the reasons the court decided that separate but equal was really not equal are not in play here. First, as a practical matter, the "equal" education provided to non-whites in segregated schools was anything but. Less money, less attention to kids, fewer teachers, less well-educated teachers, poorer facilities, etc. And as both a practical and theoretical matter, all kids benefit from the diversity of a non-segregated setting. In unions/marriage, we're talking about two people that are already together and only together with each other. No integration benefits. And if all the benefits of marriage are conferred on the partnership, then "equal" really is equal.
Quote:
Now I'll ask you a question; Can you enumerate any rights, privileges or protections enjoyed by mixed gender couples that would be diminished or taken away if the same priveleges were extended to same sex couples?
No, that has never been my argument and it never will be. I suspect the reason that the NJ Atty General's rep didn't have an adequate response to that question is because (IMHO) there isn't one. I have already spelled out in this thread the reasons for my opposition to single sex marriage, and that isn't it. A marriage certificate is a statement from society that this is something good and right. I know you believe it is, but I don't. Unless the state permits anyone over the age of consent to marry anyone (and everyone) else, the state is making moral determinations about what kind of marriage is appropriate. As long as that is true, the view of citizens who do not believe same sex marriage is a moral positive need to be considered.
Quote:
So it seems they are going with a rational approach; allowing same gender couples to marry would;
* confer all the attendant rights and priveleges without the legislative overhead
* allow the state to be in compliance with its own laws.
* not harm, diminish or delete the rights, protections and priveleges enjoyed by mixed gender couples.
All true; however, your third point appears to create the impression that there's no harm done. For the reasons stated above, there is harm done.
As for Occam's razor, the "razor" solution is the simplest solution that satisfies all the criteria. Same sex marriage satisfies all of the proponents' criteria and none of the opponents'. (Sure that's simple, but it's not very fair.)
On the other hand, permitting marital benefits for domestic partnerships satisfies all of the proponents' criteria (except approval) and all of the opponents' criteria (except disapproval, which is the current situation). That to me seems like the simplest solution. (Getting the state out of the marriage business would achieve the same goals but would be much more difficult to accomplish effectively.)
You provided legal reasoning that would justify permitting same sex marriage. But you did not specify any harm that would be visited on same sex couples by conferring full "union" benefits without calling it marriage.
_________________________
Nobody's perfect, not even a perfect stranger.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629620 - 10/28/06 01:09 AM
Re: NJ passes civil rights law for homosexuals
|
10K Club
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 13,603
Somewhere vanilla
|
Quote:
There is only one God!
not in MY country!
(which is also yours. we have a constitution, friend. like it or not.)
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629621 - 10/28/06 01:15 AM
Re: NJ passes civil rights law for homosexuals
|
10K Club
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 13,603
Somewhere vanilla
|
Quote:
My question still is, if the Domestic Partnership Act can be amended to confer all of the benefits available in marriage, why would that not be satisfactory?
i concur because semantics are semantics. there is no functional difference between calling it "marriage" and not doing so. more importantly, there CAN'T be a functional difference in NJ.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629622 - 10/28/06 01:17 AM
Re: NJ passes civil rights law for homosexuals
|
10K Club
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 13,603
Somewhere vanilla
|
Quote:
...forcing me to condone it
talk about a megalomaniac! you consider yourself a state?!
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629624 - 10/28/06 04:01 PM
Re: NJ passes civil rights law for homosexuals
|
10K Club
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 10,395
Jersey Shore
|
Rainman,
I still don't understand the exact nature of the 'harm' you claim you'll suffer if the State of New Jersey permits same-gender couples to marry. You've stipulated that you don't lose any rights, priveleges or protections currently afforded you, but the fact the some people will marry who you think should not will harm you in some unspecified, intangible way. Whatever.
The harms suffered by couples under 'civil union' or the current DPA come from the following (and these are described in part of the plaintiffs' case):
* the rights afforded are incomplete, (there are roughly 200 right/priveleges, etc. at the state level and 1100 at the Federal level that are conferred instantly upon marriage.)
* when the DPA simply breaks, or is not honored by the state or 3rd parties. (Property doesn't transfer to the surviving partner upon death, going instead to the deceased partner's parent), medical directives from the partner are ignored, hospital visitation is denied, payment of insurance or other benefits is declined.)
* when the State refuses to enforce the provisions
* when domestic partners incur legal expenses to either enforce provisions of the law.
So, the court has to balance;
1. protecting the rights of all New Jersey citizens under its constitution and its anti discrimination statutes.
2. harms already suffered by citizens relying on current DPA legislation, and the likelihood that further harm will be suffered as the DPA is amended, even allowing for the best of intentions.
Allowing same-sex couples to marry
1. automatically and reliable confers the all of the state-provided rights and priveleges.
2. preserves the rights and priveleges of mixed gender couples.
At the 'cost' of somehow hurting your feelings.
On the other hand, going back to the drawing board on 'civil unions' will
1. at best only provide an incomplete set of rights and priveleges
2. predictably harm some of the people depending on it when it fails in some new way.
My personal opinion is that your hurt feelings don't really stack up to the potential for tangible losses and harms of an imperfect DPA.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629626 - 10/28/06 11:53 PM
Re: NJ passes civil rights law for homosexuals
|
Power Poster
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,275
|
AML, you have simply assumed your conclusion that fixing the DPA won't solve the problem.
I don't see how providing the full panoply of marital rights to civil unions would be so difficult to do. You say that the rights given will be incomplete at best, but you don't offer any support (just your statement that there are rougly 1300 rights to account for). Your recitation of harms under the current DPA says what's wrong with it now, not what would be wrong if it were "fixed." I believe it can be fixed relatively simply, and I think it's worth a shot.
I'm not going to spend any more effort trying to explain the harm that accrues when the government sponsors something that a majority of the citizenry considers morally wrong. Suffice it to say that "hurt feelings" is an inadequate description.
Clearly NJ has the power to authorize same sex marriages (in fact, it must either do that or make the DPA equivalent to marriage). The question is whether that's good legislation. When the government can achieve its objective without offending the morals of a majority of its citizens, I contend that it's bad legislation to take the alternate course and ram it down people's throats simply because you can.
_________________________
Nobody's perfect, not even a perfect stranger.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629627 - 10/29/06 02:39 PM
Re: NJ passes civil rights law for homosexuals
|
10K Club
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 10,395
Jersey Shore
|
Quote:
AML, you have simply assumed your conclusion that fixing the DPA won't solve the problem.
Gee, I thought I'd based it on the legislature's inability to get it right the first time, the judiciary's unwillingness to enforce it, and the short time frame offered for legislative resolution, but OK. I assumed it.
Quote:
I don't see how providing the full panoply of marital rights to civil unions would be so difficult to do. You say that the rights given will be incomplete at best, but you don't offer any support (just your statement that there are rougly 1300 rights to account for). Your recitation of harms under the current DPA says what's wrong with it now, not what would be wrong if it were "fixed." I believe it can be fixed relatively simply, and I think it's worth a shot.
The 'full panoply of marital rights' cannot be made available because 1138 reside at the Federal level. If you're truly interested in the list, one was compiled by the General Accounting Office. Only the state's rights can be made available (under either approach, I'll admit.)
It might take only a couple of sentences ("Henceforth, throughout the statutory framework, same-sex couples will be equal to mixed-sex couples. Religious denominations retain the right to deny any couple a ceremony in their house of worship.") to achieve the goal. But I suspect you wouldn't be happy with that. (I can already hear you complaining about 'special rights' and 'custom legislation'.)
Quote:
I'm not going to spend any more effort trying to explain the harm that accrues when the government sponsors something that a majority of the citizenry considers morally wrong. Suffice it to say that "hurt feelings" is an inadequate description.
Well, you haven't spent any effort yet, you've simply asserted it. I'd ask you to support the contention that the majority of New Jersey citizens oppose gay marriage, but it doesn't really matter. The State Constitution and its anti-discrimination laws require that the rights of minorities are upheld against unequal treatment by the majority. Especially if the majority doesn't like the minority.
You might have to put on your big-boy pants and live with people you don't like. The rest of us do.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629629 - 10/30/06 01:35 PM
Re: NJ passes civil rights law for homosexuals
|
10K Club
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 10,395
Jersey Shore
|
Rainman, Here's what you've written about your 'reasons' for preferring civil unions to same-gender marriage. Quote:
But to call it a marriage is a societal stamp of approval; that's asking me to agree that it's right.
A marriage certificate is a statement from society that this is something good and right. I know you believe it is, but I don't.
... the view of citizens who do not believe same sex marriage is a moral positive need to be considered.
Nothing in what you've written rises above 'because I don't like it.' You make a tortured reference ('citizens who do not believe same sex marriage is a moral positive') to holding some moral objection, but do not explain the moral position or support it. All that does is turn 'because I don't like it' into 'because I don't like it, I have really good reasons for not liking it, but I'm not telling you what they are.'
I will disagree with the second part of your first statement; the state offering a civil approval (through licensing) does not create a requirement that you agree with that approval. There are probably any number of things done by local, state that federal goverment with which you disagree.
So, to bottom-line the discussion...
*you believe that the civil approval of something you don't agree with causes you harm, but you decline to describe the nature of the harm.
*you do stipulate that none of your state-granted rights, priveleges or protections would be harmed by allowing same-sex marriage.
*'Considering' the views of those who disagree with same-sex marriage requires that the legislative solution drive to a separate but more or less equal solution with a different name (versus a simpler and more direct approach) (I probably would have called it 'catering to'instead of 'considering', but whatever)
So you want gay couples treated differently under the law because you hold a vague moral disapproval to calling their relationships 'marriage', but this should in no way construed as 'disliking' gays, after all, some of your best friends are gay?
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629630 - 10/30/06 03:00 PM
Re: NJ passes civil rights law for homosexuals
|
Power Poster
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,121
|
Quote:
Each time you cross the street against a walk light you are betting you will make it safely accross without being hit by a car. This is called "you bet your life". To call this immoral is a stretch.
Gambling is a regulated form of entertainment. The reason it is regulated is for the state to get its piece of the pie.
The same could be said of tobacco. Billions have been spent on anti-smoking campaigns yet, smoking is still legal. Why, becuase smokers subsidize none smokers by paying exhorbitant taxes to the state.
I take it you do not beleive gambling is immoral? What do you base that on?
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629631 - 10/30/06 04:24 PM
Re: NJ passes civil rights law for homosexuals
|
Diamond Poster
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 2,476
USA
|
There are a lot of things that are immoral that people do on a daily basis. Everyone's level of acceptability of immorality is different based on their beliefs, opinion and (if they are bible readers) their interpretation of the bible.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629632 - 10/30/06 03:20 PM
Re: NJ passes civil rights law for homosexuals
|
Power Poster
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,121
|
Quote:
There are a lot of things that are immoral that people do on a daily basis. Everyone's level of acceptability of immorality is different based on their beliefs, opinion and (if they are bible readers) their interpretation of the bible.
But if what you say is true, moral/immoral is unique to each person. How could we use morality as a basis for lawmaking?
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Thread
Index