N.J. Court Opens Door to Gay Marriage

Alan Yee said:

True, it's only the second U.S. state to do it, but it's progress nonetheless.

Click to expand...

Actually, it's most likely only going to lead to civil unions, not gay marriage.

I work in the IT industry. I'm a computer nerd. I'm good at math.

I'd like to be acknowledged as an Asian.

To deny me this is to be a bigot.

Civil unions are the only thing that matters. Religous unions don't mean a thing to insurance companies and the court system.

dclary said:

I work in the IT industry. I'm a computer nerd. I'm good at math.

I'd like to be acknowledged as an Asian.

To deny me this is to be a bigot.

Click to expand...

What's your point, aside from having nothing to do w/ the topic?

As to civil unions, it's about freakin' time!

A civil union is recognized by the law. That way, the partners are protected. They can benefit from insurance and have all the legal rights that people get when they marry.

Jean Marie said:

What's your point, aside from having nothing to do w/ the topic?

Click to expand...

That words mean something.

The definition of an Asian is someone born in Asia, or to people of Asian descent.

The definition of marriage is a union between a man and a woman.

As writers, who ought to understand the value of words, you should understand that homosexuals are demanding the world redefine existing words just so they can fit square pegs in round holes.

What's wrong with having a new word that means "a union between two men or two women" -- bedonkled, for instance. "Come to the Smith-MacKenzie bedonkling, it's the event of the year." "Bob and Stan were bedonkled this summer!" "We've been bedonkled for 50 years now."

Words mean something. I'm not going to lightly watch a minority fringe group change words that have value to me without a fight, or at least being really prissy about it.

That said, I'm totally against bedonkling.


(LOL, just kidding. If two dudes or dudettes want to form a family unit together, who am I to say no? And neither should the law. Just don't call it a marriage. Because it isn't.)

Why not call it a marriage? Who really cares? Two people who love each other and want to make a life together shouldn't be allowed to call what they have a marriage? It's a blending of two souls.


It's just a word.

Just so long as you allow me the right to be called an Asian.

Just a word.

call yourself anything you like, it doesn't hurt anyone

I can't figure out why people are so against the use of the term "marriage" when it comes to gay ceremonies. No one has a monopoly on the word, and the term is used to describe other situations (for example #5 and 6 below). It seems to me that it is just arguing semantics.

Definition from encarta.
mar·riage (plural mar·riages)

noun
Definition: 1. legal relationship between spouses: a legally recognized relationship, established by a civil or religious ceremony, between two people who intend to live together as sexual and domestic partners

2. specific marriage relationship: a married relationship between two people, or a somebody's relationship with his or her spouse
They have a happy marriage.

3. joining in wedlock: the joining together in wedlock of two people

4. marriage ceremony: the ceremony in which two people are joined together formally in wedlock

5. union of two things: a close union, blend, or mixture of two things
Civilization is based on the marriage of tradition and innovation.

6. card games king and queen of same suit: in card games such as pinochle and bezique, a combination of the king and queen of the same suit

Of *COURSE* the educational elite have changed their definitions to match their liberal agendas. Duh.

Encarta.

*snicker*

tiny terror said:

call yourself anything you like, it doesn't hurt anyone

Click to expand...

Fair enough. At least we know where we stand. Except I'm demanding YOU call me Asian. Not just me. It doesn't mean anything if *I'm* the only one who calls me Asian.

I've had people request that I call them something, I roll with it. It doesn't take anything away from me and makes them happy usually

MacAllister said:

Well, no. It's not the same thing until we start taxing Asians differently, using different rules for Asians who want to visit their loved ones in the hospital, make different laws for Asians who'd like to know their children will be raised by their spouses...I could go on and on.

Then, if you want to insist that you're being discriminated against, Deek, since you don't get the special treatment, you might well have a point.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. But as I said, Mac, I'd be fully in support of a law that allowed any two people form a family unit, with the same benefits (and responsibilities) of any other family.

I just won't call that "marriage."

clary, call yourself anything you'd like. Means nothing to me. Really.

Civil unions, marriage should be the right of anyone, anywhere, anytime. Period. No particular group should be privy to certain rights while others are denied them. This is a democracy, right? And we've got that thing called the Bill of Rights, right? That's what I thought.

Besides, being Asian, you're protected under those rights, so why can't gays be?

dclary said:

I just won't call that "marriage."

Click to expand...

Why? Chefs call a blending of ingredients a marriage of flavors. All it means is a joining of elements in a harmonious nature. Do you think that two people who are the same sex somehow diminish the word? Or the institution itself? Because let's face it, straight people are diminishing it really well themselves.

I don't quite understand the objection to using the term "marriage." It's not like anyone has a monopoly on the word, in fact one of the definitions is a union between 2 people (none that I looked at said of the opposite sex) or a close and intimate relationship - which can also be referring to something beyond people, to infer a close relationship - like the marriage of art and architecture, the marriage of wine and cheese etc etc. It just seems to me to be an argument in semantics - and quite petty to decide that a word should only "belong" to heterosexual couples.

I also think that as writers, we should know that words are very often redefined in response to changes in society. In fact not too long ago, I was reading a thread here at AW on how words change.

ETA - Argh! That's weird - I could have sworn my post 13 didn't "take" so I reposted, sans the dictionary info. Oh well, ignore one of them...

dclary said:

Of *COURSE* the educational elite have changed their definitions to match their liberal agendas. Duh.

Encarta.

*snicker*

Click to expand...

Actually, I just randomly picked it from a list of dictionaries on line. There were several others with the same info - none had any reference to the sex of the marriage participants. This is not to say that there aren't any, it just never occured to me that encarta would be considered "liberal" or that it makes it unusual to not have the sexes mentioned since up until this time, there would be no question about it - and therefore not noteworthy.

It's because you don't realize that academia has had an unspoken agenda against christianity and its sacraments for millenia.

Look at the defintion of marriage in 1828. Then look at the definition of marriage in 1919. And then look at your definitions of marriage there. For centuries this word has meant "union of man and woman." I don't want that definition to change during the century I'm alive.

http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?resource=Webster%27s&word=marriage&use1913=on&use1828=on

Um, dclary, christianity doesn't OWN "marriage".

Used to be, all you had to do to be married was to openly declare your intention in front of witnesses. No priest, rabbi or monk. If Christianity chooses to use the word as a sacrament, it's their right. But it's NOT their right to claim they have an exclusive claim to what they see as marriage, nor to tell people who do not follow that religion what they can and cannot call 'married'.

What about 'common law marriage'? You have no problem with that, I'll bet, and there is NO religious connotation to that at all - merely a state-regulated one based on how long two people live together.

I personally think it's fine, it doesn't hurt me, it doesn't hurt you. It's a word. Civil union, marriage, it's semantics. They would LIKE to have the CHOICE to be married legally, because they feel that otherwise they are being discriminated against. I tend to agree, and think that such a thing is small potatoes compared to other things in this world. Sometimes you just gotta roll with it.