Cranbury Forum | Bulletin | Info Sharing
[Click here to bookmark this page: http://cranbury.info]
▪
Cranbury School
▪
Cranbury Township
▪
Cranbury Library
▪
Cranbury.org
▪
Cranburyhistory.org
(Press Ctrl and = keys to increase font size)
Search
Register (optional)
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
[http://cranbury.info]
->
News | Events
Post a reply
Username
Subject
Message body
Emoticons
Font colour:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Indigo
Violet
White
Black
Font size:
Tiny
Small
Normal
Large
Huge
Close Tags
[quote="Guest"]People make this issue too complicated. There are church marriages and there is the State's role in marriage which not only includes officially "permitting" it but the dozens of ways the laws give legal advantage and status to marriage people from taxes to shared property rights to legal protection from recrimination to parental rights to health benefits. Churches should be able to do whatever they want in regards to gay marriage consistent with their own principles. But the state has no business discriminating. It should either get out of the marriage business, which it doesn't need to be in and historically wasn't, and stop giving legal privileges and advantages to married people, or it should let gays enjoy all the status and advantages of legal marriage. I have no issue with people who feel like gay marriage is against their religion, even if I don't agree, but when they feel like they should enjoy state-sanctioned benefits from something they argue is religious in basis, they can no longer base their argument on religion. Civil unions are not adequate in solving the State-sanctioned side of this because they still create a discriminatory lesser status and enjoy some but not all of the same level of protections in some cases. Again, if you want to protect the word marriage, then change ALL state-involvement to "civil union" for any couple, gay or heterosexual. Someone can still be declared "married" by their church while state's acknowledge "civil unions." The arguments that marriage has "always been" between a man and woman or that the state has always acknowledged it as such are both wrong. There have been gay marriages going back to ancient cultures and in fact most ancient cultures were more tolerant of them, and the state did not historically play a formal role in marriage until relatively recently in history, and only when they started using it to extract taxes or confer special benefits and rights.[/quote]
Options
HTML is
ON
BBCode
is
ON
Smilies are
ON
Disable HTML in this post
Disable BBCode in this post
Disable Smilies in this post
All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Jump to:
Select a forum
Topics
----------------
News | Events
School | Parenting
Blogs by Cranbury Residents
Shopping | Good Deals | Price Talk
Home Sweet Home
House For Sale
Home Sales Pricing Records
Financial | Stocks | Mutual Funds
Cool Bytes & Bits
Garage Sale | ForSale Ads | Things to Trade
Tech Related (PC, Internet, HDTV, etc.)
Interesing and Fun Stuff to Share
What's Your Favorite?
Interests | Hobbies
Cranbury History
Radom Thoughts | Sports | Kitchen Sink
Amazon Deals
Local Business Info
----------------
Local Business Ads (FREE)
Support
----------------
Daily Sponsored Message & Amazon Ads
About Us | Your Privacy | Suggestion | Sponsored
Test Area (Practice your posting skills here)
Topic review
Author
Message
Guest
Posted: Mon, Aug 15 2011, 6:02 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: Bert and Ernie arent gay and wont get married
Guest wrote:
Guest wrote:
Guest wrote:
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/44111195/ns/today-entertainment/
Damn that Elmo! He's such a homewrecker!
watch your language - there are many upstanding Christian straight people reading this
Bert & Ernie are not gay.
They just pretend to be a couple so that they can keep their rent controlled apartment on Sesame Street that they got together in 1970!
Guest
Posted: Mon, Aug 15 2011, 6:00 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: Plurality Of New Jersey Voters Thinks Gay Marriage Should Be Legal
Guest wrote:
Guest wrote:
Guest wrote:
What if I want to marry my sister?
Thats not gay.
Marrying your Brother.........................NOW THATS GAY!
I assumed it was a woman marrying her sister, silly me.
That was sexist of me.
Guest
Posted: Sat, Aug 13 2011, 11:50 am EDT
Post subject: Re: Bert and Ernie arent gay and wont get married
Guest wrote:
Guest wrote:
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/44111195/ns/today-entertainment/
Damn that Elmo! He's such a homewrecker!
watch your language - there are many upstanding Christian straight people reading this
Guest
Posted: Fri, Aug 12 2011, 10:35 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: Bert and Ernie arent gay and wont get married
Guest wrote:
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/44111195/ns/today-entertainment/
Damn that Elmo! He's such a homewrecker!
Guest
Posted: Thu, Aug 11 2011, 10:42 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: Plurality Of New Jersey Voters Thinks Gay Marriage Should Be Legal
Bert and Ernie are icky.
Guest
Posted: Thu, Aug 11 2011, 9:58 pm EDT
Post subject: Bert and Ernie arent gay and wont get married
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/44111195/ns/today-entertainment/
Guest
Posted: Wed, Aug 10 2011, 6:10 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: Plurality Of New Jersey Voters Thinks Gay Marriage Should Be Legal
Guest wrote:
Again you are confused. We find you icky.
Yeah! You're icky!
Guest
Posted: Wed, Aug 10 2011, 8:06 am EDT
Post subject: Re: Plurality Of New Jersey Voters Thinks Gay Marriage Should Be Legal
Again you are confused. We find you icky.
Guest
Posted: Wed, Aug 10 2011, 12:04 am EDT
Post subject: Re: Plurality Of New Jersey Voters Thinks Gay Marriage Should Be Legal
Guest wrote:
Guest wrote:
Guest wrote:
Guest wrote:
Guest wrote:
Guest wrote:
Your question was already answered in the novel-length reply so why re-ask?
Because he thinks he is being provacative, instead of merely dim.
Actually, the question I asked wasn't answered. I did hope the question would be provocative, as in "thought provoking". If you argue that any two consenting adults in a loving committed relationship should be allowed to marry, what would preclude me from marrying my sister?
No one argued that "any two consenting adults in a loving committed relationship should be allowed to marry" except you. That had nothing to do with the basis for why the state should not prevent gay marriage which is about discrimination. Family members are not a recognized class that can be discriminated against so if the state wishes to prevent incest marriages it can without contradicting its laws. In fact, since most states outlaw incest entirely it would be a contradiction for it to allow incest marriages.
If you're trying to start a new topic about whether incest should be legal, go for it, but marriage between family members is completely unrelated to gay marriage which is what this topic was about.
I think you're missing the difference between the moral argument vs. the legal justification. I'm not debating your legal justification, but I think it ignores the larger moral debate; which is important because laws tend to change as morality changes (See Lawrence v. Texas, 2003). Regarding the moral debate...
Opponents of gay marriage have argued that the purpose of marriage is to foster a stable family unit for the purposes of procreation and child rearing and that is why marriage should be limited to one man and one woman.
Proponents of gay marriage have argued that marriage is not necessarily about procreation and child rearing (both of which are essentially available to homosexuals anyway); rather marriage is a loving, committed relationship between two consenting adults, regardless of sexual orientation.
What I find interesting is that many of the social liberals who are so quick to dismiss the morality of social conservatives on issue of gay marriage as over-reaching and imposing, have no problem imposing their own morality on someone who wants to marry their sister, or brother, or father, or mother.
What is it to you? Why should you get to decide who can and can't be in a loving committed relationship? Why is your morality superior to those with differing points of view? If you support gay marriage, on what moral grounds can you oppose intra-familial marriage?
No one is arguing with you. We find your argument essentially trivial. I don't think liberals are arguing with you. I don't think anyone is arguing with you.
Yeah! Who cares about the rights of such a small group of people. Besides, they're icky!
Guest
Posted: Tue, Aug 9 2011, 12:03 am EDT
Post subject: Re: Plurality Of New Jersey Voters Thinks Gay Marriage Should Be Legal
Guest wrote:
Guest wrote:
Guest wrote:
Guest wrote:
Guest wrote:
Your question was already answered in the novel-length reply so why re-ask?
Because he thinks he is being provacative, instead of merely dim.
Actually, the question I asked wasn't answered. I did hope the question would be provocative, as in "thought provoking". If you argue that any two consenting adults in a loving committed relationship should be allowed to marry, what would preclude me from marrying my sister?
No one argued that "any two consenting adults in a loving committed relationship should be allowed to marry" except you. That had nothing to do with the basis for why the state should not prevent gay marriage which is about discrimination. Family members are not a recognized class that can be discriminated against so if the state wishes to prevent incest marriages it can without contradicting its laws. In fact, since most states outlaw incest entirely it would be a contradiction for it to allow incest marriages.
If you're trying to start a new topic about whether incest should be legal, go for it, but marriage between family members is completely unrelated to gay marriage which is what this topic was about.
I think you're missing the difference between the moral argument vs. the legal justification. I'm not debating your legal justification, but I think it ignores the larger moral debate; which is important because laws tend to change as morality changes (See Lawrence v. Texas, 2003). Regarding the moral debate...
Opponents of gay marriage have argued that the purpose of marriage is to foster a stable family unit for the purposes of procreation and child rearing and that is why marriage should be limited to one man and one woman.
Proponents of gay marriage have argued that marriage is not necessarily about procreation and child rearing (both of which are essentially available to homosexuals anyway); rather marriage is a loving, committed relationship between two consenting adults, regardless of sexual orientation.
What I find interesting is that many of the social liberals who are so quick to dismiss the morality of social conservatives on issue of gay marriage as over-reaching and imposing, have no problem imposing their own morality on someone who wants to marry their sister, or brother, or father, or mother.
What is it to you? Why should you get to decide who can and can't be in a loving committed relationship? Why is your morality superior to those with differing points of view? If you support gay marriage, on what moral grounds can you oppose intra-familial marriage?
No one is arguing with you. We find your argument essentially trivial. I don't think liberals are arguing with you. I don't think anyone is arguing with you.
Almost Heaven
Posted: Mon, Aug 8 2011, 10:54 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: Plurality Of New Jersey Voters Thinks Gay Marriage Should Be Legal
I'm getting an idea for a new reality show-
Almost Heaven
- featuring a West Virginia family that's just a little too close.
Guest
Posted: Mon, Aug 8 2011, 9:28 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: Plurality Of New Jersey Voters Thinks Gay Marriage Should Be Legal
Guest wrote:
Guest wrote:
Guest wrote:
Guest wrote:
Your question was already answered in the novel-length reply so why re-ask?
Because he thinks he is being provacative, instead of merely dim.
Actually, the question I asked wasn't answered. I did hope the question would be provocative, as in "thought provoking". If you argue that any two consenting adults in a loving committed relationship should be allowed to marry, what would preclude me from marrying my sister?
No one argued that "any two consenting adults in a loving committed relationship should be allowed to marry" except you. That had nothing to do with the basis for why the state should not prevent gay marriage which is about discrimination. Family members are not a recognized class that can be discriminated against so if the state wishes to prevent incest marriages it can without contradicting its laws. In fact, since most states outlaw incest entirely it would be a contradiction for it to allow incest marriages.
If you're trying to start a new topic about whether incest should be legal, go for it, but marriage between family members is completely unrelated to gay marriage which is what this topic was about.
I think you're missing the difference between the moral argument vs. the legal justification. I'm not debating your legal justification, but I think it ignores the larger moral debate; which is important because laws tend to change as morality changes (See Lawrence v. Texas, 2003). Regarding the moral debate...
Opponents of gay marriage have argued that the purpose of marriage is to foster a stable family unit for the purposes of procreation and child rearing and that is why marriage should be limited to one man and one woman.
Proponents of gay marriage have argued that marriage is not necessarily about procreation and child rearing (both of which are essentially available to homosexuals anyway); rather marriage is a loving, committed relationship between two consenting adults, regardless of sexual orientation.
What I find interesting is that many of the social liberals who are so quick to dismiss the morality of social conservatives on issue of gay marriage as over-reaching and imposing, have no problem imposing their own morality on someone who wants to marry their sister, or brother, or father, or mother.
What is it to you? Why should you get to decide who can and can't be in a loving committed relationship? Why is your morality superior to those with differing points of view? If you support gay marriage, on what moral grounds can you oppose intra-familial marriage?
Guest
Posted: Mon, Aug 8 2011, 6:27 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: Plurality Of New Jersey Voters Thinks Gay Marriage Should Be Legal
Guest wrote:
Guest wrote:
What if I want to marry my sister?
Thats not gay.
Marrying your Brother.........................NOW THATS GAY!
I assumed it was a woman marrying her sister, silly me.
Guest
Posted: Mon, Aug 8 2011, 5:20 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: Plurality Of New Jersey Voters Thinks Gay Marriage Should Be Legal
Guest wrote:
What if I want to marry my sister?
Thats not gay.
Marrying your Brother.........................NOW THATS GAY!
Guest
Posted: Sun, Aug 7 2011, 11:26 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: Plurality Of New Jersey Voters Thinks Gay Marriage Should Be Legal
Guest wrote:
Guest wrote:
Guest wrote:
Your question was already answered in the novel-length reply so why re-ask?
Because he thinks he is being provacative, instead of merely dim.
Actually, the question I asked wasn't answered. I did hope the question would be provocative, as in "thought provoking". If you argue that any two consenting adults in a loving committed relationship should be allowed to marry, what would preclude me from marrying my sister?
No one argued that "any two consenting adults in a loving committed relationship should be allowed to marry" except you. That had nothing to do with the basis for why the state should not prevent gay marriage which is about discrimination. Family members are not a recognized class that can be discriminated against so if the state wishes to prevent incest marriages it can without contradicting its laws. In fact, since most states outlaw incest entirely it would be a contradiction for it to allow incest marriages.
If you're trying to start a new topic about whether incest should be legal, go for it, but marriage between family members is completely unrelated to gay marriage which is what this topic was about.
Guest
Posted: Sun, Aug 7 2011, 7:50 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: Plurality Of New Jersey Voters Thinks Gay Marriage Should Be Legal
Guest wrote:
Guest wrote:
Guest wrote:
Guest wrote:
Your question was already answered in the novel-length reply so why re-ask?
Because he thinks he is being provacative, instead of merely dim.
Actually, the question I asked wasn't answered. I did hope the question would be provocative, as in "thought provoking". If you argue that any two consenting adults in a loving committed relationship should be allowed to marry, what would preclude me from marrying my sister?
Nothing, I suppose; if that's what you're in to. You might as well sleep with her while you're at it; as long as you're both consenting adults.
... And that's the story of how West Virginia came to support gay marriage. The End.