Page 183 of 184 FirstFirst ... 83133173181182183184 LastLast
Results 1,821 to 1,830 of 1834

Thread: New Jersey Senate Defeats Gay Marriage Bill

  1. #1821
    Sage
    Renae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Antonio Texas
    Last Seen
    10-23-17 @ 10:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    38,972
    Blog Entries
    15

    Re: New Jersey Senate Defeats Gay Marriage Bill

    Quote Originally Posted by jallman View Post
    I'm saying that unless you've developed some super awesome-o mind powers that none of the rest of the human race has evolved to (and we both know where I stand on that assessment by now), you can't make a certain prognostication as to what will happen.
    Good point, history never repeats itself, and all those others out there in the real world predicting that the group marriage folks will use the same tactics as the gay marriage folks are just idiots too.

    Quote Originally Posted by jallman View Post
    However I can say this with full certainty...group marriage does not fit the ordered contract that marriage is in that a group marriage occludes the whole concept of naming one person to be your irreplacable partner. That would prevent the argument right off the bat.
    Whoa re you to judge what is right for others? Just because it doesn't fit your preconceived notion of what marriage is and should be about?

    Quote Originally Posted by jallman View Post
    But let's not let reason and critical thought get in the way of whatever it is you are trying to accomplish here.
    I'm pointing out that Gay Marriage will lead to Group Marriage.

    It's just the next step.
    Climate, changes. It takes a particularly uneducated population to buy into the idea that it's their fault climate is changing and further political solutions can fix it.



  2. #1822
    Educator Winnb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    02-22-10 @ 07:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    822

    Re: New Jersey Senate Defeats Gay Marriage Bill

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post


    I'm pointing out that Gay Marriage will lead to Group Marriage.

    It's just the next step.
    Ah the slippery slope argument. Well using your slippery slope argument we should ban straight marriages too. Here's how it works.

    Allowing straight marriage leads to gay marriage.

    Allowing gay marriage leads to group marriages.

    Allowing group marriages leads to incestuous marriages.

    And after that maybe some guy marrying his pet goldfish or some such nonsense.

    So if we made straight marriages illegal, that would stop the gay marriages you're so afraid of, which would in turn stop all of the group marriages that will ruin our nation and bring about Armageddon.
    Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none.

    -------------------------------------------------

  3. #1823
    Professor
    Groucho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Pocono Mountains, PA
    Last Seen
    05-24-11 @ 03:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,363

    Re: New Jersey Senate Defeats Gay Marriage Bill

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    I'm pointing out that Gay Marriage will lead to Group Marriage.
    Because of course that's what has happened in every other place in the world that has allowed gay marriage. It's inevitable! You can't stop it! One day, you allow people of the same sex to get married and the next thing you know, the entire country is married to each other!

    Oh wait, my bad. I remember now. That hasn't happened anyplace and there is no movement whatsoever to make it happen. Silly me.

  4. #1824
    Sage
    Renae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Antonio Texas
    Last Seen
    10-23-17 @ 10:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    38,972
    Blog Entries
    15

    Re: New Jersey Senate Defeats Gay Marriage Bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Groucho View Post
    Because of course that's what has happened in every other place in the world that has allowed gay marriage. It's inevitable! You can't stop it! One day, you allow people of the same sex to get married and the next thing you know, the entire country is married to each other!

    Oh wait, my bad. I remember now. That hasn't happened anyplace and there is no movement whatsoever to make it happen. Silly me.
    The Netherlands and Belgium were the first countries to give full marriage rights to homosexuals. In the United States some politicians propose “civil unions” that give homosexual couples the full benefits and responsibilities of marriage. These civil unions differ from marriage only in name.

    Meanwhile in the Netherlands polygamy has been legalised in all but name. Last Friday the first civil union of three partners was registered. Victor de Bruijn (46) from Roosendaal “married” both Bianca (31) and Mirjam (35) in a ceremony before a notary who duly registered their civil union.

    “I love both Bianca and Mirjam, so I am marrying them both,” Victor said. He had previously been married to Bianca. Two and a half years ago they met Mirjam Geven through an internet chatbox. Eight weeks later Mirjam deserted her husband and came to live with Victor and Bianca. After Mirjam’s divorce the threesome decided to marry.

    Victor: “A marriage between three persons is not possible in the Netherlands, but a civil union is. We went to the notary in our marriage costume and exchanged rings. We consider this to be just an ordinary marriage.”

    Asked by journalists to tell the secret of their peculiar relationship, Victor explained that there is no jealousy between them. “But this is because Mirjam and Bianca are bisexual. I think that with two heterosexual women it would be more difficult.” Victor stressed, however, that he is “a one hundred per cent heterosexual” and that a fourth person will not be allowed into the “marriage.” They want to take their marriage obligations seriously: “to be honest and open with each other and not philander.”

    Update:
    First Trio "Married" in The Netherlands | The Brussels Journal

    Oops. Guess you were wrong there.

    Oh and look... Polygamist using Gay Marriage to push for their rights...

    If one man can marry another, why can't a man have 20 wives?

    That's something of the gist of the defence to be used as the case against accused BC polygamists Winston Blackmore and James Oler started to move through BC courts Jan 21.

    And, says Blackmore's lawyer, Blair Suffredine, if the argument has to go all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, so be it.

    The first appearance in Creston, BC Provincial Court lasted less than five minutes.

    It was put over to Feb 18 for disclosure of documents.

    After that appearance, it could move directly to BC Supreme Court in nearby Cranbrook.

    But, Suffredine cautions, that has to wait for the outcome of the pending trial.

    The former BC provincial Liberal MLA says he doesn't want to minimize same-sex marriage through the argument.

    "If [gays] can marry, what is the reason that public policy says one person can't marry more than one person?" he asks. "How is that going to outlast a Charter challenge?"

    He says people need to grasp that society's standards have changed.

    "If a man loves a woman and promises to be faithful to them and take care of them, that's a crime?" Suffredine asks. "A gay man [marrying] a gay man isn't a crime anymore."

    BC Attorney General Wally Oppal says some legal experts believe polygamy charges won't withstand a constitutional challenge in Canada over the issue of freedom of religion.

    Oppal said at the time of the arrest that he believes polygamy is an offence in law.

    And, he added, if someone says that's contrary to their religion, then the issue is now up to the courts.

    Blackmore and Oler were arrested at their Bountiful, BC commune Jan 7.

    Blackmore faces charges of committing polygamy with 20 women, while Oler is accused of committing polygamy with two women.
    Lawyer in Bountiful polygamy case uses gay marriage defence

    See all you people yelling I'm full of it... you're blind to reality.

    Oh, and for the record, he beat the rap. No charges filed and is now suing the state.
    Last edited by Renae; 02-04-10 at 01:16 AM.
    Climate, changes. It takes a particularly uneducated population to buy into the idea that it's their fault climate is changing and further political solutions can fix it.



  5. #1825
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    02-16-11 @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    36,915
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: New Jersey Senate Defeats Gay Marriage Bill

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    First Trio "Married" in The Netherlands | The Brussels Journal

    Oops. Guess you were wrong there.

    Oh and look... Polygamist using Gay Marriage to push for their rights...


    Lawyer in Bountiful polygamy case uses gay marriage defence

    See all you people yelling I'm full of it... you're blind to reality.

    Oh, and for the record, he beat the rap. No charges filed and is now suing the state.
    Now let's turn the stupid down a notch and actually read what is being said.

    The Netherlands and Belgium were the first countries to give full marriage rights to homosexuals. In the United States some politicians propose “civil unions” that give homosexual couples the full benefits and responsibilities of marriage. These civil unions differ from marriage only in name.
    That's a blatant lie. There is a discrepancy of roughly 400 rights between what civil unions afford and marriages offer with over 1100. Most notable among these is the right to transfer between states and have the marriage remain in effect.

    Meanwhile in the Netherlands polygamy has been legalised in all but name. Last Friday the first civil union of three partners was registered. Victor de Bruijn (46) from Roosendaal “married” both Bianca (31) and Mirjam (35) in a ceremony before a notary who duly registered their civil union.
    That's double speak for "polygamy is not legal in the Netherlands. Further, it states these people had a civil union, not a marriage. I would be interested in seeing the actual legal implications of this "civil union" and what weight it actually carries....

    Victor: “A marriage between three persons is not possible in the Netherlands, but a civil union is. We went to the notary in our marriage costume and exchanged rings. We consider this to be just an ordinary marriage.”
    Just went to the notary and exchanged rings. "WE consider this to be just an ordinary marriage." That makes no comment as to what the Netherlands considers this "marriage".

    As to your second point, I am sure some will make the argument just like some might make the argument for marrying a donkey. That doesn't mean the argument has any chance of flying in a court of law in the US.

  6. #1826
    Sage
    Renae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Antonio Texas
    Last Seen
    10-23-17 @ 10:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    38,972
    Blog Entries
    15

    Re: 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.
    Climate, changes. It takes a particularly uneducated population to buy into the idea that it's their fault climate is changing and further political solutions can fix it.



  7. #1827
    Irrelevant Pissant

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Last Seen
    03-13-14 @ 07:55 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    4,194

    Re: New Jersey Senate Defeats Gay Marriage Bill

    Why do we not want to recognize polyamorous unions again?

  8. #1828
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,124

    Re: New Jersey Senate Defeats Gay Marriage Bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Panache View Post
    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.

  9. #1829
    Sage
    Renae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Antonio Texas
    Last Seen
    10-23-17 @ 10:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    38,972
    Blog Entries
    15

    Re: New Jersey Senate Defeats Gay Marriage Bill

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    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
    Climate, changes. It takes a particularly uneducated population to buy into the idea that it's their fault climate is changing and further political solutions can fix it.



  10. #1830
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,692

    Re: New Jersey Senate Defeats Gay Marriage Bill

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    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.
    "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"

Posting Permissions

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