• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New Jersey Senate Defeats Gay Marriage Bill

A: It's a "Civil Union" which is what most states that allow gay's to wed use is it not?

Also, the authorities have not nullified this union.

20 years ago, people would have said that allowing to men to join in a Civil Union or marriage wouldn't fly either Jall.

I agree that animals will never be included, because duh, their animals, without rights.

What grounds will the courts have in a state that allows Gay Unions in whatever form, to deny three people to join under religious beliefs?

None, none whatsoever.
 
Why do we not want to recognize polyamorous unions again?
 
Why do we not want to recognize polyamorous unions again?

There isn't a lot of evidence that they benefit society. What studies have been done of them have found that they are difficult to sustain without substantial wealth, the wives often compete so that their children will get the attention of the father, and in some sects, the boys of the family are kicked out of the family because they pose as competition to their fathers for young wives.

In reality the "gay marriage will lead to polygamy" argument is humorous because the opposite is true. Polgyamy has lead to same sex marriage. Polygamy existed before same sex marriage, was outlawed before same sex marriage, and is the first argument brought up when considering same sex marriage. People have effectively used the banning of polygamy as the defining factor for two person marriages. However, the flaw in that definition is that it doesn't justify restricting the genders of the two people getting married to being different. So people have no put the wagon in front of the horse and now argue that what they have used to define marriage, the banning of polygamy, will fall apart if two people of the same sex are allowed to marry. It doesn't make a lot of sense, but meh.
 
There isn't a lot of evidence that they benefit society. What studies have been done of them have found that they are difficult to sustain without substantial wealth, the wives often compete so that their children will get the attention of the father, and in some sects, the boys of the family are kicked out of the family because they pose as competition to their fathers for young wives.

In reality the "gay marriage will lead to polygamy" argument is humorous because the opposite is true. Polgyamy has lead to same sex marriage. Polygamy existed before same sex marriage, was outlawed before same sex marriage, and is the first argument brought up when considering same sex marriage. People have effectively used the banning of polygamy as the defining factor for two person marriages. However, the flaw in that definition is that it doesn't justify restricting the genders of the two people getting married to being different. So people have no put the wagon in front of the horse and now argue that what they have used to define marriage, the banning of polygamy, will fall apart if two people of the same sex are allowed to marry. It doesn't make a lot of sense, but meh.

That argument that Polygamy isn't beneficial to society but gay marriage is... Is a farce and everyone using it knows it



I understand, that when some on the right went "Woah, wait, if we use that logic as a basis, won't that just make polygamy justifiable?" The Left realizing this danger has pulled out all stops to both deny this is the case, attack the argument and those using it as stupid, or idiotic... and they refuse to debate the issue as a general rule. See Jallman's behavior, fits it to a T.

The smoke screen, that Polygamous Unions have no benefit, and are too tough to maintain so there for not worth discussing is another common tactic.

Arguments for Gay Marriage.

Gays as Individuals Will Be Better Off:

Studies repeatedly demonstrate that people who marry tend to be better off financially, emotionally, psychologically, and even medically. Marriage is not universally an improvement (women, for example, can actually be worse off in some ways), but it generally is. Because of this, it stands to reason that legalized gay marriage will ultimately prove beneficial for gay individuals. This, in turn, will be better for gay couples, the families of gays, and communities where gays live.

Could you not make the same argument for three people who believe that such a union is best for them?


Gay Couples Will Be Better Off:

Perhaps the most important aspect of marriage is that it establishes a legal and social relationship which makes it easier for people to “be there” for each other — economically, emotionally, and psychologically. Most of the rights and privileges that go with marriage are, in fact, ways to help spouses support each other. Married couples are thus much better off than unmarried couples, giving relationships the ability to grow stronger and deeper.

Would it not benefit a Polygamous relationship if there were no longer a need to hide it? If the people involved were able to utilize the legal protections of Marriage? Would that not remove the stigma attached and let them live in peace?

Families with Gay Members Will Be Better Off:

Because gays can’t marry, it’s very difficult for partners to help each other in difficult situations like medical crises. The burden of support and decision-making typically falls in the laps of other family members when it should fall to one’s chosen life partner. If people know that they can rely upon their relative’s spouse, they can be far less anxious about what will happen to their loved one — not just in the context of a crisis, but in general, too.
Again, would it not better if a family of 3, or 5 be able to make sound legal decisions for their loved ones, instead of running from the law, instead of being unable to make choices,a nd being forced to sit by as others do so for them?

Children of Gay Couples Will Be Better Off:

The Christian Right would deny gays the ability to adopt or raise children, but that’s an impossible goal. Children are already being born to, adopted by, and raised by gay couples in increasing numbers. Children in stable, married households can be better off than those who aren’t because both parents can handle decision-making and parenting without worry. Opponents of divorce often cite the negative effects on children; the same can be said against bans on gay marriages.

Now, currently there are "studies" showing Polygamy is bad for kids. Yes, and there were (and are) studies that show children of gay couples have problems too. As the idea is more accepted, so have the studies shown the problems with the gay family have subsided. Is it not reasonable to conclude the same would occur in a group marriage?

Communities with Gay Couples Will Be Better Off:

Married couples can help and support each other in a variety of ways because laws and regulations are written to help that happen — for example, people are able to take time off to help their hospitalized spouse. Gay couples who cannot marry don’t receive the same help, so much of what gay partners would do for each other must be shouldered by the community at large, unnecessarily draining resources. By solidifying relationships, gay marriage can help stabilize a community overall.

Again, if that "family" of 3 adults and 4 kids in tht big house at the end of the block were no longer freaks, but accepted members of the community, could not their contribution be added to strengthen the community rather then be a point of ridicule? Would it not be better if the ones in the unit were working could provide a group coverage benefit through work in terms of Healthcare instead of relying on the city, or state?

Gay Marriages Will Help Stabilize Society Generally:

Conservatives who usually oppose gay marriage argue, correctly, that stable families are a cornerstone to a stable society. Families are the smallest social unit in society and trends in the family inevitably affect trends in society as a whole — and vice-versa, of course. Allowing gays to marry will help better integrate them and their relationships into society. Ensuring that gay relationships are stable and receive support will benefit the stability of society overall.

Ditto for a group marriage situation.

Gay Marriage Could Benefit Marriage Generally:

Opponents of gay marriage argue that it would undermine the institution of marriage, but it’s hard to see how more marriages would be bad for marriage. If anything harms marriage, it is bad marriages where people don’t take marriage seriously — and that’s already too common with heterosexuals. If gay couples in committed relationships are able to formalize their unions as marriages, that can only serve to improve marriage overall by providing more positive role models.

If 4 people could join in marriage, and be successful, how is that a bad thing?

Arguments for Gay Marriage: Moral and Social Arguments for the Legalization of Gay Marriages
 
Despite my reputation, I am not that bullheaded ;)

Depends on your presentation. ;)

I think many "get it" they just refuse to compromise in their beliefs to admit it.

I agree. And I've said that. Always irritates them.

There are reasons not to do it. The behavior is historically considered deviant.

And has been proven to NOT be deviant. Anyone who goes against these facts is basing their position on a value judgment.

Religious beliefs say they are bad for society.

Religious beliefs do not govern the land. Using a religious based argument is basing a decision on a value judgment.

Two men, nor two women cannot reproduce on their own.

Procreation is not a precondition to marriage.

See, MrV? The arguments against GM are either value based, logical fallacies, both, or are not applicable. There is no logical reason to reject GM. Now, if someone claims they are against GM because of their religious beliefs, or because of their own values, I will accept that. I will not like or agree with it, and demonstrate it's lack of logic, but it is not my place to dictate what their values should be. However, if they try to demonstrate how their values are logical and should be accepted by others, then I will argue and show the lack of logic in them.
 
When you boil it down, all the arguments against gay marriage are "I don't like it so therefore they shouldn't have it."

But you know what worries me lately? Corporate marriage. Let's face it, if corporations are now people, they'll be demanding marriage rights next!
 
When you boil it down, all the arguments against gay marriage are "I don't like it so therefore they shouldn't have it."

But you know what worries me lately? Corporate marriage. Let's face it, if corporations are now people, they'll be demanding marriage rights next!

I wanna marry both Procter and Gamble:mrgreen:
 
There isn't a lot of evidence that they benefit society.

So? Are you saying that if there weren't a lot of evidence that gay marriage benefitted society that that would somehow be justification for treating a group of people like second class citizens?

If studies showed that gay marriage cost taxpayer dollars without providing a benefit to society, would you be against gay marriage?

What studies have been done of them have found that they are difficult to sustain without substantial wealth,

So? So are Regular old straight marriages. For that matter, they are hard to sustain with substantial wealth, and most of them fail.

the wives often compete so that their children will get the attention of the father

This is America. We think competition is good. I am sure the husbands of queen bees must compete as well.

and in some sects, the boys of the family are kicked out of the family because they pose as competition to their fathers for young wives.

So? Young men leaving the nest isn't bad for society either.

In reality the "gay marriage will lead to polygamy" argument is humorous because the opposite is true. Polgyamy has lead to same sex marriage. Polygamy existed before same sex marriage, was outlawed before same sex marriage, and is the first argument brought up when considering same sex marriage. People have effectively used the banning of polygamy as the defining factor for two person marriages. However, the flaw in that definition is that it doesn't justify restricting the genders of the two people getting married to being different. So people have no put the wagon in front of the horse and now argue that what they have used to define marriage, the banning of polygamy, will fall apart if two people of the same sex are allowed to marry. It doesn't make a lot of sense, but meh.

Sure it makes sense. There was polygamy, which was cool. There was also patriarchal misogyny, which caused problems. A bunch of nimrods misidentified polygamy as the problem and as you said, outlawed it. Obviously problems continued, so nimrods misidentified homosexuality as the problem, and as you said, outlawed it after polygamy.

Now folks are figuring out that homosexuality isn't a problem. Soon they will figure out that polyamory isn't a problem either. Hopefully one day they will figure out that governments sticking their noses where they don't belong IS a problem.
 
When you boil it down, all the arguments against gay marriage are "I don't like it so therefore they shouldn't have it."

But you know what worries me lately? Corporate marriage. Let's face it, if corporations are now people, they'll be demanding marriage rights next!

They all ready can, it's called a merger.

AOL Time Warner anyone?
 
Back
Top Bottom