Page 121 of 184 FirstFirst ... 2171111119120121122123131171 ... LastLast
Results 1,201 to 1,210 of 1834

Thread: New Jersey Senate Defeats Gay Marriage Bill

  1. #1201
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:13 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,565

    Re: New Jersey Senate Defeats Gay Marriage Bill

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Absolutely. I reject the concept of "natural rights".

    This is true. That's why laws are changeable based on societal needs and knowledge that we gain. Our current laws reflect information that we have learned... not information we knew 200 years ago.

    If a future study came along and found that gay marriage is actually detrimental, I would think there would be many who would use this information to abolish it. Depending on the level of detriment, I would be on their side. Things need to be weighed in all areas. And yes, I think the APA stamp of approval matters.

    As I said, I do not see anything as a fundamental right, which is why it's benefit to society is based on current knowledge, societal/individual needs, and is relevant based on what is discovered when the issue is studied.
    You must admit this is pretty thin gruel given the general foundations of the arguments in favor of same-sex marriage. There are few who would agree with you on this. Very, very few, if any proponents of same-sex marriage argue for it primarily because it's a benefit to society. I'm sure they don't mind information saying it is, but in no way would it matter to them if that information wasn't there.

    By making these arguments, you pre-torpedo the case for same-sex marriage, making it entirely dependent on information which could change at any time.

    So, maybe you think this "easily dispenses" with the argument for polygamy, but if it does, on these terms, it pretty much does the same for same-sex marriage.

    I, of course, don't agree, and believe in sound fundamental rights. And I've encountered no argument for same-sex marriage as a fundamental right which would not also apply to polygamy.
    Last edited by Harshaw; 01-17-10 at 01:34 AM.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  2. #1202
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,711

    Re: New Jersey Senate Defeats Gay Marriage Bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    You must admit this is pretty thin gruel given the general foundations of the arguments in favor of same-sex marriage. There are few who would agree with you on this. Very, very few, if any proponents of same-sex marriage argue for it primarily because it's a benefit to society. I'm sure they don't mind information saying it is, but in no way would it matter to them if that information wasn't there.
    And, IMO, this is why the GM argument usually fails at the legislative and public sense. Gay rights activists argue from a discriminatory position... a failure of a position. The societal benefits position, based on evidence, research, and definitions is an easy winner.

    By making these arguments, you pre-torpedo the case for same-sex marriage, making it entirely dependent on information which could change at any time.
    I am unconcerned with the future in this respect. It could change. If it did, it would be appropriate to try to change the law to reflect the current state of research. But it also might NOT change. And if it does not, the current laws remain.

    So, maybe you think this "easily dispenses" with the argument for polygamy, but if it does, on these terms, it pretty much does the same for same-sex marriage.
    Not currently, it doesn't.

    I, of course, don't agree, and believe in sound fundamental rights. And I've encountered no argument for same-sex marriage as a fundamental right which would not also apply to polygamy.
    Since I reject fundamental rights and have seen nothing to give them credence, my position is based on evidenciary information and societal change and relativity. Currently, same-sex marriage has been shown to be beneficial to individuals, family, and society. Polygamy has not. This is why government should sanction the former and not the latter.

    We come from two completely different philosophies, here and will probably never see eye to eye, not only on the issue, but on how we arrive at our conclusions.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  3. #1203
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:13 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,565

    Re: New Jersey Senate Defeats Gay Marriage Bill

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    And, IMO, this is why the GM argument usually fails at the legislative and public sense. Gay rights activists argue from a discriminatory position... a failure of a position.
    But it's how it's winning the judicial arena.


    The societal benefits position, based on evidence, research, and definitions is an easy winner.
    In which arena? Not judicially. I can't imagine it's going to gain much traction legislatively or from a populist position, either, so I don't see at all how it's "easy."


    I am unconcerned with the future in this respect. It could change. If it did, it would be appropriate to try to change the law to reflect the current state of research. But it also might NOT change. And if it does not, the current laws remain.

    Not currently, it doesn't.
    It can change at any time. If same-sex marriage becomes universal, and new info comes along -- which it may well, considering the opportunity for actual broad-based empirical observation, which hasn't been there before -- you're really going to lobby to repeal it? Or vociferously support the repeal? Really?

    I'm quite skeptical.


    Since I reject fundamental rights and have seen nothing to give them credence, my position is based on evidenciary information and societal change and relativity. Currently, same-sex marriage has been shown to be beneficial to individuals, family, and society. Polygamy has not. This is why government should sanction the former and not the latter.

    We come from two completely different philosophies, here and will probably never see eye to eye, not only on the issue, but on how we arrive at our conclusions.
    OK, but your arguments are not the arguments of the vast, vast majority of the same-sex marriage proponents, and they are unlikely to sway any of the players in the key avenues to getting it done. You're pretty much on your own island here.

    Besides, it's not so much about that as it is "easily dispensing" with arguments for polygamy while advocating same-sex marriage. On your own terms, they rise and fall on the same basis.
    Last edited by Harshaw; 01-17-10 at 02:04 AM.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  4. #1204
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,711

    Re: New Jersey Senate Defeats Gay Marriage Bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    But it's how it's winning the judicial arena.
    Perhaps it is how it will win... but after how long? The discriminatory position is fairly easily rebutted, logically. The benefit position is not. IMO, if the pro-GM position had been from the benefit standpoint from the beginning, GM would probably already be a reality.




    In which arena? Not judicially. I can't imagine it's going to gain much traction legislatively or from a populist position, either, so I don't see at all how it's "easy."
    I disagree. From a judicial standpoint, evidence and proof are often what wins. Much of the GM effort has been via the legislative process, a process that is more based on popular opinion. That's why there has been so much failure.




    It can change at any time. If same-sex marriage becomes universal, and new info comes along -- which it may well, considering the opportunity for actual broad-based empirical observation, which hasn't been there before -- you're really going to lobby to repeal it? Or vociferously support the repeal? Really?

    I'm quite skeptical.
    Be skeptical. If there was solid, new information that refuted everything that was previously known, I would change my position. But what if that never happens? Then from an evidenciary standpoint, GM is the law.




    OK, but your arguments are not the arguments of the vast, vast majority of the same-sex marriage proponents, and they are unlikely to sway any of the players in the key avenues to getting it done. You're pretty much on your own island here.
    I don't disagree with you, here. I have argued with folks on DP how the discriminatory position is a failed position... and I can argue it pretty well. There are too many holes. The societal benefit position does not suffer from those holes.

    Besides, it's not so much about that as it is "easily dispensing" with arguments for polygamy while advocating same-sex marriage. On your own terms, they rise and fall on the same basis.
    Currently, based on the knowledge of the day, it is easy to dispense with arguments for polygamy and easy to advocate GM. I am uninterested in what could happen or what could be learned. Those issues are irrelevant. I base my position on what IS happening and what IS known. Makes sense to do so.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  5. #1205
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:01 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,170

    Re: New Jersey Senate Defeats Gay Marriage Bill

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Absolutely. I reject the concept of "natural rights".
    You don't mean all natural rights do you?

  6. #1206
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,711

    Re: New Jersey Senate Defeats Gay Marriage Bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    You don't mean all natural rights do you?
    If you are referring to the type of natural rights that John Locke proposed, yes, absolutely.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  7. #1207
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,144

    Re: New Jersey Senate Defeats Gay Marriage Bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    Thanks for being upfront and honest.

    I agree 100%
    Just shows that the arguments against gay marriage are root in religious bigotry and nothing else. Thank you for driving that home yet again.
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  8. #1208
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:13 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,565

    Re: New Jersey Senate Defeats Gay Marriage Bill

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Perhaps it is how it will win... but after how long? The discriminatory position is fairly easily rebutted, logically. The benefit position is not. IMO, if the pro-GM position had been from the benefit standpoint from the beginning, GM would probably already be a reality.
    See below.


    I disagree. From a judicial standpoint, evidence and proof are often what wins.
    The discriminatory position is the only position you can argue judicially, because the definition of marriage and all of the public policy around it is exclusively a legislative matter. The judiciary has nothing to say about it unless it violates rights.



    Much of the GM effort has been via the legislative process, a process that is more based on popular opinion. That's why there has been so much failure.
    Why do you think popular opinion would change significantly in light of your argument?





    Be skeptical. If there was solid, new information that refuted everything that was previously known, I would change my position.
    Not the point. Would you argue it? Would you tell a married couple to their faces that, so sorry, we were wrong, and now you can't be married anymore?


    But what if that never happens? Then from an evidenciary standpoint, GM is the law.
    Well, that is self-evident.


    I don't disagree with you, here. I have argued with folks on DP how the discriminatory position is a failed position... and I can argue it pretty well. There are too many holes.
    I have pointed some out myself.


    The societal benefit position does not suffer from those holes.
    Then you have to get there legislatively. Good luck.


    Currently, based on the knowledge of the day, it is easy to dispense with arguments for polygamy and easy to advocate GM.
    I think there is a great deal of societal benefit in NOT basing public policy for something so fundamental to people's lives on something so potentially capricious -- particularly if it may mean, as you say it does, that the right to marry could be taken away later on that basis.


    I am uninterested in what could happen or what could be learned. Those issues are irrelevant. I base my position on what IS happening and what IS known. Makes sense to do so.
    Well, as I said above, good public policy takes the possible consequences into account, particularly when they are foreseeable, as they are in this case.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  9. #1209
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,144

    Re: New Jersey Senate Defeats Gay Marriage Bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    You need to start accepting the fact that it is a moral issue and not necessarily a religions one for some.

    As I have said before I was against it even before I was a Christian.

    Many issues have no religious bearing on them for me like abortion. I think abortion should be a last resort and only used in cases on incest or rape. It has nothing to do with my religion at all. I assume this is true for others and other issues like gay marraige.
    Oh please.....Blackdog. The only people against gay marriage are the right-wing Christians who believe the GOD is against gay marriage. These are the same people who thought that GOD was against inter-racial marriage.

    The same people who thought at one point that GOd was against shell-fish as well.
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  10. #1210
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:13 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,565

    Re: New Jersey Senate Defeats Gay Marriage Bill

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    Just shows that the arguments against gay marriage are root in religious bigotry and nothing else.
    Actually, I think the absoluteness of this statement is rooted in religious bigotry and nothing else.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •