NJ justices poised to rule on Gay marriage

[TheFaithfulStone]

Now, might I raise the bar a bit more. Pre-2200 did a marriage get recorded in a region not closely associated with Judea (say china or native america)? Was any gay-marriage resulting in a for life reomantic union ever recorded remotely close to this time? Historically since this point in time, how many gay marriages resulting in a for life romantic union have been recorded up until recent times say the 19th century?

 

No, there weren't any marriage recorded in the Americas because THEY DIDN'T HAVE WRITTEN LANGUAGE. Prior to 2,200 BC in China? I don't know, I'm not sure they had written language prior to that in China. You're left only with oral history, which you've already indicated you won't accept. (But the oral history from almost every culture indicates marriage.) You've set the bar impossibly high - it's like asking me to provide you photographic proof that dinosaurs existed.

 

Added stipulation, the term marriage must have been used to describe that union, and the union must have been of that type, not some Fujian elderly man marrying a 10 year old boy until he becomes old enough to marry a woman.

 

The term marriage is used to describe the marriage of the Fujian man to the boy. But the "union must of been of that type" turns your entire point into one giant begged question.

 

Any example I give that does not fit your definition can be discarded because it doesn't fit your definition. If you say "name a marriage system that allows women to have multiple husbands" and I say "Tibet" and you say "That doesn't count because it allows women to have multiple husbands, which a marriage can't do."

 

In any case, you're missing the point entirely. I don't need to provide a specific example of a gay marriage (which you would reject anyway.) My point is that marriage is not an eternal, unchanging institution, and that it has seen many forms throughout human history. There is no compelling reason not to change it again.

 

I think this is going to be my last word on the subject.

 

The justices stated that the constitution was written with the idea that any couple would be afforded equal rights, with the intent that no couple be discriminated against. However, they stated that all laws written up to this point have been written to affirm marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and these laws are specific enough to not need rewriting. Instead the majority justices (liberals) stated that the term marriage need only apply to one man and one woman and that a new term may be supplied to apply to gay couples.

 

That's fine. That has nothing to do with the definition of marriage.

 

That's actually pretty solid legal reasoning. It doesn't have anything to do with some Platonic form of marriage that we're not living up to, it's simply saying that the present regime is unequal, and that it needs to be corrected.

 

And although I can be quizzical about what the difference is between the second finger right of my index finger and the first one left of my pinky, and why you find it necessary to make the distinction, it's not a terribly big deal.

 

TFS

[cwes99_03]

There is no difference between those two fingers. You again fall off the wagon of reasoning. We aren't talking about two terms refering to the same thing. We are talking about one term referring to two different things.

 

If I called the first finger past my thumb my index finger, but I also called the second finger past my thumb my index finger then which would I be talking about in the following sentence.

 

I pointed at him with my index finger.

 

You couldn't tell. Therefore, why even call it an index finger. Why not just call it a finger?

 

What don't you get about this concept TFS? I have had to clarify it for you over and over.

 

The stipulations I added are necessary for two very good reasons.

 

1) the stipulations cite exactly what we are talking about here and now. We are not discussing whether an elderly man legally living with a 10 year old boy with no sexual rite is called marriage. We are talking about whether the permanent (well they do say til death do us part in many vows) union of a man and a man or a woman and a woman with sexual rites among others can be called a marriage. To defend your position that it can be, you need to cite where it has been before.

2) Any other union between a man and a man or a woman and a woman that is not of this kind (besides it's irrelavance) possibly should not have been called a marriage, as the term marriage in the western world has been defined differently for what 800 years. Thus the anthropologists who referred to the Fujian cultural method as a marriage when it clearly didn't fit the stipulation for what a western marriage is, was misrepresenting. That said, if you want to stand on that footing, I am ok with it. As you point out, someone has called it a marriage in a paper somewhere, then I guess the burden would be on me to show that they improperly referred to it as a marriage either because they couldn't think of a better existing term to refer to it as in the English language or because they allowed their political motives to overshadow their research (as someone who is pro-gay rights might do) to site precedence. Instead, I would choose to go back to their original language and see if there were different terms for a marriage between a man and a woman with sexual rites and a marriage between a man and a boy that only lasted until that boy was an adult. If so, then again you have made a bad citation, but I guess neither one of us will know because neither one of us knows ancient Fujian dialects or words.

[TheFaithfulStone]

My point is that marriage is not an eternal, unchanging institution, and that it has seen many forms throughout human history. There is no compelling reason not to change it again.

 

No matter how many example I provide, I suspect you will continue to shoot them down as not being "enough" like the concept of marriage that you know.

 

We can demonstrate that even in the West marriage is not permanent, or always sexual exclusive. For example - Open Marriage and Serial Monogamy.

 

TFS

 

ps - the Fujian relationship in question was sexual in nature. linky, halfway down

[Freddy]

Sources say that marriage existed in Egyptian culture since 3000 BCE and in Chinese culture since 5000 BCE. Because records do not exist it is difficult to prove, but how did societies exist without marriage and family. The Old Testament was at best written 3000 years ago, or 1000 BCE. Some experts say it is only as old as 600 BCE. In either case the 'history' of the Bible was written centuries after the fact.

[cwes99_03]

No matter how many example I provide, I suspect you will continue to shoot them down as not being "enough" like the concept of marriage that you know.

 

We can demonstrate that even in the West marriage is not permanent, or always sexual exclusive. For example - Open Marriage and Serial Monogamy.

 

TFS

 

ps - the Fujian relationship in question was sexual in nature. linky, halfway down

What can I say, think about the examples you provide a bit more before suggesting them. I provided pretty specific guidlines for what I needed before I would allow the definition of marriage to be expanded beyond heterosexual couples.

 

I acknowledge that there have been changes in what it means to be married, including new liberal definitions of open marriage. While personally these disgust me, the idea isn't new. For as long as there has been marriage, there has been infidelity. What I asked is for you to show that for as long as there has been marriage, homosexual couples have been "married" just like heterosexual couples.

 

Serial monogamy, isn't marriage, even the wiki article acknowledges that. It says that partners can be married or unmarried, but then it goes on to say that they will only be with one person at a time. How can both be true? If you are married, but sleeping with another person, are you not breaking the monogamy side of the situation?

It answers this question in the next paragraph.

Serial monogamy could also be seen as serial, but not monogamous. It is a form of polygamy wherein the multiple spouses are had "in series" (one after the other) rather than "in parallel" (at the same time).

Thus for it to be monogamous, they would have to be at least separated or divorced before the next relationship.

BTW, polygamy is illegal in the US. So I don't think you want to delve into an illegal act to support your basis.

 

 

As for the Fujian reference, please look again. I am not saying that it did not happen, but your reference does not explicitly say so. It may be widely believed, but then there is a possibility that such an arrangement was really more like an apprenticeship, where an older wiser man would tutor a young boy on how to act manly, for all I know. In such a case, I maintained, the term marriage would not be applied properly to whatever term the ancient society used. In all likelihood, I would also be willing to bet that two terms existed, one for the arrangement of the old man and another for a man and woman.

 

So again I ask, "What is your problem with two terms for two situations?"

[TheFaithfulStone]

So again I ask, "What is your problem with two terms for two situations?"

 

No problem. I find the position to be excessively nuanced, but whatever.

 

Seems you need to come up with a lot of different words though.

 

TFS

[cwes99_03]

Sources say that marriage existed in Egyptian culture since 3000 BCE and in Chinese culture since 5000 BCE. Because records do not exist it is difficult to prove, but how did societies exist without marriage and family. The Old Testament was at best written 3000 years ago, or 1000 BCE. Some experts say it is only as old as 600 BCE. In either case the 'history' of the Bible was written centuries after the fact.

 

Actually, there is some basis that what was written in the Bible agreed with other earlier writings about the history of the people (that like the chinese writings you suspect existed, are no longer around), not just oral tradition being put down in words.

 

The old testament was begun being written (the earliest books were written) by Moses at the time of the exodus of the Isrealites from Egypt. Many bible scholars agree that this happened around 1450 BC, not 1000 or 600 BC, and new archaeological evidence is also pointing toward this date.

 

Coupled together these two pieces of data suggest writings defining marriage (a term coupling a man and a woman) existed well before 1500 BCE, if not in written form at least as a social idea (why did Joseph not have intercourse with Potiphar's wife (1900 BC), because it was not acceptable to do so as a custom).

[cwes99_03]

It is not I that need to come up with the words. Humankind throughout written history has decided to come up with a lot of words.

 

Homosexuals have come up with new words to describe how they are different. They come up with terms to describe all the different ways a person can be sexually active, they come up with terms of all the different types of sex they can imagine, why can't they come up with a new term here?

Many liberals have even begun saying oral sex is not sex at all. Here I would say they are wrong again. Oral sex for hundreds of years has been a defined type of sex.

Perhaps the problem is that some people today want everything to revolve around them. To hell with whatever anyone else today or in all of history thinks. I'm sorry, but that's not how things are done, and that isn't likely to change any time soon. It would be the ruination of language as a whole, making language and speaking worthless. No one would be able to understand one another.

[InfiniteNow]

Homosexuals have come up with new words to describe how they are different.

Prove it. Once you have, please answer the following: Have not heterosexuals also come up with new words to describe how homosexuals are different?

 

They come up with terms to describe all the different ways a person can be sexually active, they come up with terms of all the different types of sex they can imagine, why can't they come up with a new term here?

Your "us" and "them" mentality betrays your bigotry. It's unfortunate that you're one of the "those" people...

 

 

Many liberals have even begun saying oral sex is not sex at all.

Yeah, so have conservatives, but the thrust of this issue (which is ludicrously off the subject of the thread anyway) comes from young students wishing to preserve their innocence, the pride of their parents, and their social status while simulataneously exploring their natural feelings of lust and curiousity.

 

"She's still a virgin if she's only had butt-sex, right?" What if it's homosexual male sex? Is butt-sex de-virginizing then? Who gives a rat's dick?

 

It would be the ruination of language as a whole, making language and speaking worthless. No one would be able to understand one another.

As evidenced by this thread alone, I believe several of us already fall into that description.

 

 

People are people, so why should it be... :shrug:

[Freddy]

Actually, there is some basis that what was written in the Bible agreed with other earlier writings about the history of the people (that like the chinese writings you suspect existed, are no longer around), not just oral tradition being put down in words.

 

The old testament was begun being written (the earliest books were written) by Moses at the time of the exodus of the Isrealites from Egypt. Many bible scholars agree that this happened around 1450 BC, not 1000 or 600 BC, and new archaeological evidence is also pointing toward this date.

 

Coupled together these two pieces of data suggest writings defining marriage (a term coupling a man and a woman) existed well before 1500 BCE, if not in written form at least as a social idea (why did Joseph not have intercourse with Potiphar's wife (1900 BC), because it was not acceptable to do so as a custom).

 

I would love to see exactly who your sources are. My reseach finds that religious scholars accept the earlier dates(1450 BCE), while secular Biblical scholars accept the later dates (1200-600 BCE) for when the Old testament was written. In either case many Biblical events predate the OT being written.

[cwes99_03]

See the wiki article, on exodus. They say there that new archaeological evidence is forthcoming showing that the secularists need to adjust their timeline. This is not surprising at all to me since it was the secularists who over the last century have been proven wrong time and time again about dates of occurences and existence of people that they Bible speaks about.

 

The problem with the secularists is that they refuse to believe anything could happen, until they have hard physical proof that that person existed. The particular problem with this is that, history tends to erase things that aren't immaculately preserved (either naturally such as by burying the evidence in a sandstorm, or through revisionists who destroy writings, and archaeological sites and artifacts so that no one can know the truth, or by biased "historians" who only relate their side of a story and things that won't make their culture look bad.) Thus only a percentage of all historical artifacts survive.

 

Ramses II or Merneptah of the 19th Dynasty, around 1290 BC, favoured by the large majority of both religious and secular scholars, although this contradicts several key aspects of the biblical account, and neglects several recent archaeological discoveries in Tel el-Dab'a and Jericho. See Ramesses II#Was he the Pharaoh of the Exodus?.

[cwes99_03]

Prove it. Once you have, please answer the following: Have not heterosexuals also come up with new words to describe how homosexuals are different?

 

 

Your "us" and "them" mentality betrays your bigotry. It's unfortunate that you're one of the "those" people...

 

Sure, transgendered, metro-sexual, urning(tum), Homogenic love, Androtrop and Gynäkotropin, LGBT (lesbiangaybitrans) and many more found here.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:LGBT_terms

 

Not all terms were created by LGBT people, but some have been.

 

The point that I believe you missed in your rage to blast me as a "BIGOT" was that all of these terms are different, but they often refer to homosexual people. So if we can use so many different terms for homosexual people, then why can't we use one more new term to refer to a new idea (historically) of a politically/governmentally recognized union of a gay person and their lover with equal rights to those already afforded to married people?

 

Because people like you (who are the real bigots because they can't stand (hate) anyone who thinks differently on the subject at hand) want everybody to be like you and think the way you do. Funny how you are so similar to the people you hate.

 

BTW, I am not a bigot.

A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from their own. The origin of the word in English dates back to at least 1598, via Middle French, and started with the sense of religious hypocrite, especially a woman.

 

Bigot is often used as a pejorative term against a person who is obstinately devoted to their prejudices even when these views are challenged or proven to be false. Forms of bigotry may have a related ideology or world views.

 

You see, I 1) am not hypocritical, 2) am not intolerant of the opinion (as an intolerant one would not even want you or anyone else to discuss the issue on this site), 3) don't use pejorative terms against anyone, at least not intentionally since some terms adapt new connotations nearly every day, 4) and have never held false views on anyone (that is to say, I only hate the act of homosexuality because the Bible says to hate what is bad and identifies homosexual acts as a bad thing).

 

I have furthermore known quite a few gay people, and work with some in my job. I have never attacked them, nor shouted slurs of any kind at any of them. Even though I think they are at their core, wrong/misled/confused due to any number of stimuli in their life, I know that this is an issue to be resolved by higher authorities (human governments for now, but ultimately God's kingdom) and therefore I have no reason to act on their freedom to exist.

The only thing I have control over is my association with them. I likewise have control over my association with people who are pedaphiles, people who rape and murder, people who practice idolatry and spiritism, people who tell lies, etc. etc. etc.

 

Now, at the end of this post, I would like to point out to you that this has been my stance all along. It is you who continue to fight the losing battle on this issue because you are "obstinately devoted to [your] prejudices even when these views are challenged or proven to be false."

[TheFaithfulStone]

I have furthermore known quite a few gay people, and work with some in my job. I have never attacked them, nor shouted slurs of any kind at any of them. Even though I think they are at their core, wrong/misled/confused due to any number of stimuli in their life, I know that this is an issue to be resolved by higher authorities (human governments for now, but ultimately God's kingdom) and therefore I have no reason to act on their freedom to exist.

The only thing I have control over is my association with them. I likewise have control over my association with people who are pedaphiles, people who rape and murder, people who practice idolatry and spiritism, people who tell lies, etc. etc. etc.

 

You don't think that sounds suspiciously like "Some of my best friends are black?" :eek_big:

 

I also like your comparison there of gay people with "pedaphiles [sic], people who rape and murder, people who practice idolatry and spiritism, people who tell lies."

 

Not nearly as subtle as your position on borticulation.

 

TFS

[cwes99_03]

1) I never had a position on borticulation, the term was used before I joined the discussion. I was never subtle on any topic discussed on this thread. I aptly described my viewpoint over and over.

 

2) I never said I was a friend of a gay individual. So, I wouldn't agree with your quip. Furthermore, why do you make it sound like there would be something wrong for an accused bigot to say "Some of my best friends are black"?

I suspect all you are saying is that one who claims such a thing is a liar. If this is true then why skirt the issue. Why not just call me a liar? You have no idea who I am or who I have known in the past.

 

I'll make myself very clear once more. I have known many people throughout my life, of different stances on this issue. My personal feelings are that these people practice what I feel to be wrong, and I do not wish to be friends with these people unless they change their ways. I, however, also feel that I should obey all the laws of the country I live in, that I should not meddle in politics, that I should show kindness and consideration for any human one way or another, and above all I should obey the commandments found in the Bible above all else. No where in the Bible does it tell me to stone anyone who has a different viewpoint, but it does say to avoid contact.

 

So would you like to return to the topic at hand?

Have you yet found a reason to consider the term marriage to be broadly applied by the Supreme Court of NJ or any court for that matter (say the court of public opinion)?

[TheFaithfulStone]

1) You're right, the term in this thread is matronked. Your position is subtle. Matronked is exactly like marriage in every way except it's what gay people do. That's a pretty fine grained distinction, but if you like to draw it, okay.

 

2) These sentences sometimes also begin with "I'm not a racist, but..." You get the idea. Some of my family are Republicans, but that doesn't mean I'm not a Democratic ideologue. :eek_big:

 

TFS

[cwes99_03]

You believe it is fine grained but at least 800 years of western politics disagree with you.

 

I don't get the idea. I disagree that the sentences begin with "I'm not a racist, but"

 

Try out the following and see if it makes sense to you TFS.

 

"I'm not a racist, but some of my best friends are black."

"I'm not a racist, but I married a black woman."

 

No, neither one makes sense because of the word but. The word but there signifies a fine point. Being close friends with another race means that you aren't racist. You can't be one and the other.

 

If you define bigot to mean that you refuse to be friends with, or refuse to openly accept that someone's opinion is just as good as yours, then by all means define me a bigot. I'll know you are wrong, and so will loads of other people.

 

This is exactly what TBD meant when he said if someone were to walk down the street with a shirt saying "I'm proud to be white" he would be attacked as a racist. I say that I diapprove of homosexuality, and it immediately becomes "You're a gay basher." But you know what, call me a gay-basher, do whatever makes you feel like you can sleep at night (straw-man here but you know what I mean.)

[Turtle]

Because people like you (who are the real bigots ...

 

3) don't use pejorative terms against anyone, at least not intentionally

 

That must have slipped out accidentally then? :)

 

BOT, Colorado is also voting on a gay marriage statute and the hypocritical gay-but-married crank-using evangelical minister who was just outed has not helped his bigotted stance against gay marriage in the least. Well, he's probably the only one, huh? :)

 

http://test.denverpost.com/news/ci_4550508

 

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/03/haggard.allegations/index.html