• 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

CriticalThought said:
This is a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. The founders of this country envisioned protecting the rights of minorities from the will of the majority. In doing so, they created a system of checks in balances, whereby the legislature and the Supreme Court could protect the civil rights of minorities.
Click to expand...

Do these rights also include child molesters, rapists, sado masochists, and other perverted devations from the norm? You're equating our founding fathers with unintended subjects. You forget that these types of abberrant behaviors were looked upon as the gravest sins by our founding fathers, and individuals involved in this type of behavior would have surely been put to death.
 
bicycleman said:
Do these rights also include child molesters, rapists, sado masochists, and other perverted devations from the norm?
Click to expand...

No. What occurs between consenting adults is protected by the Constitution. What occurs coercively is not.

You're equating our founding fathers with unintended subjects. You forget that these types of abberrant behaviors were looked upon as the gravest sins by our founding fathers, and individuals involved in this type of behavior would have surely been put to death.
Click to expand...

The founding fathers also denied women the right to vote and owned slaves. What is your point? That the founding fathers had a perfect vision of what was moral and right?
 
Last edited:
bicycleman said:
The Bible, take your pick of which translation. I prefer King James.





God's laws are written in the Bible for man to follow.
Click to expand...

All of which is nothing but your opinion, as I said. Appeal to Tradition. Sorry, but the bible is NOT evidence. Try again.
 
bicycleman said:
Here's the dilemma, Red. Suppose little Johnny gets into trouble at school and gets expelled. The Principal sends a note home to his parents. Johnny is instructed that if he wants to get back to school, he must have both his mother and father come to school to explain why he should be readmitted to the school. That puts poor little Johnny in a quandary because he has 2 daddys or 2 mommies. It also embarasses him in front of school authorities, and his school mates may also hear of it and tease him. Poor little Johnny has now become the poor little pawn now. No one ever thinks of the consequences to the child.
Click to expand...

Here's the dilemma, bicycleman. Suppose little Johnny gets into trouble at school and gets expelled. The Principal sends a note home to his parents. Johnny is instructed that if he wants to get back to school, he must have both his mother and father come to school to explain why he should be readmitted to the school. That puts poor little Johnny in a quandary because his father died. Whatever will he do, now?

Do you realize how absolutely ridiculous your example sounds? This is NOT how it occurs. A parent or guardian would be required to do this, not both. Your example is foolish and not part of reality.
 
winston53660 said:
So your point is that gender discrimination under the law is okay?
Click to expand...

My point is its a man and a woman.........That is not a change.....There is no gender discrimination.......any man can marry any woman........
 
Last edited:
texmaster said:
LOL Let me get this straight. You need proof the bunghole is for excreting excrement?

Please tell me you aren't serious.
Click to expand...

You are describing A purpose. Prove it is THE purpose. A link to the designers website would suffice.
 
Taylor said:
Why is it that people on this forum have such trouble figuring out the purpose of various parts of the body? If it were something like the appendix, I might understand.
Click to expand...

Why is it that some people on this forum have such a difficult time discerning between A purpose and THE purpose? If they had evidence of such, you would think they would show it.
 
CriticalThought said:
Huh?

Your argument was that the people should vote on civil rights.

Stick with one argument.

Since you seem to like to change your argument and go in circles, I'll just write them all out and the rebuttals for each.

1. The purpose of the anus is not for anal sex.

Has nothing to do with marriage because either heterosexuals or homosexuals could engage in anal sex. Lesbians don't engage in anal sex. And neither the government nor you has any business with what people do in their bedrooms.

2. Same sex marriage would allow for alternative forms of marriage.

There is a strong evidence base supporting same sex marriage that does not extend to other forms of marriage such as polygamy or incest. This includes evidence which shows that both partners benefit from marriage and same sex couples are just as capable of raising children as different sex couples. Given that the civil purpose of marriage is to provide for stable relationships and homes to raise children, these are vital factors which the evidence supports for same sex marriage, but not for polygamous or incestuous relationships.

Also, the number of children being raised in polygamous and incestuous homes is very small, but 8 to 10 million children are being raised by gay parents and same sex couples, which indicates a large population of young people who could benefit from same sex marriage.

3. The people should vote on same sex marriage.

This is a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. The founders of this country envisioned protecting the rights of minorities from the will of the majority. In doing so, they created a system of checks in balances, whereby the legislature and the Supreme Court could protect the civil rights of minorities. Hence, it makes no more sense to have people vote on same sex marriage than it would have to have had them vote on interracial marriage. For that matter, just because a majority is against an idea, does not mean the idea is wrong. Most people were against interracial marriage, but that doesn't mean interracial marriage was wrong then or is wrong now.
Click to expand...


Wrong again my argument is about not refining the definition of marriage...........

1. and to me its just as disgustingregardless if the person is straight or gay...

2. according to the 14th amendment the equal protection clause.......You can't just have it your way...If gay marriage was ever approved there are a bunch of polygamysts out in Utah right now ready to apply for marriage....
 
Last edited:
Navy Pride said:
My point is its a man and a woman.........That is not a change.....There is no gender discrimination.......any man can marry any woman........
Click to expand...

So why can I do something a woman can not. Marry a woman. It is based on gender. The simple fact is I can marry a woman because of my gender.
 
roderic said:
Any particular reason for this, or is this just a typical rightwing kneejerk reaction when losing an argument?
Click to expand...

Typical rightwing kneejerk reaction.
 
Navy Pride said:
Like I told you when all your political beliefs are far left, I don't care what you call yourself you are a left winger. You may not know it but you are........Now this thread is not about me so please try and stay on the primary topic.......thanks.........
Click to expand...

NP, no offense, but this thread isn't about others, either, so don't refer to folks as "left-wingers" if they do not want to be called that.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
NP, no offense, but this thread isn't about others, either, so don't refer to folks as "left-wingers" if they do not want to be called that.
Click to expand...

That should also include us conservatives being labeled as bigots since that has occurred more than once. Mind you, it doesn't bother me, but it has happened, none the less.;)
 
I think I have the answer for all you gays that want to marry a person of the same sex.........Move to Canada....Gay marriage is legal there and that will never be the case here.......
 
Navy Pride said:
I think I have the answer for all you gays that want to marry a person of the same sex.........Move to Canada....Gay marriage is legal there and that will never be the case here.......
Click to expand...

Well, that was where all the draft dodgers went, too. :mrgreen:
 
Navy Pride said:
Wrong again my argument is about not refining the definition of marriage...........
Click to expand...

Ah, so we are to the redefining the definition of marriage argument. :mrgreen:

Frankly, I find this argument to be incredibly weak because allowing same sex couples to marry does virtually nothing to the marriages of heterosexuals. In essence, it isn't much different than arguing that the definition of "voting" was changed when women were allowed to vote. After all, women were not traditionally allowed to vote. Imagine how the definition of "property" changed when it no longer extended to owning human beings. Slavery was long a tradition.

It's pretty much one big appeal to tradition fallacy that you conservatives dreamed up.
 
Navy Pride said:
Wrong again my argument is about not refining the definition of marriage...........

1. and to me its just as disgustingregardless if the person is straight or gay...

2. according to the 14th amendment the equal protection clause.......You can't just have it your way...If gay marriage was ever approved there are a bunch of polygamysts out in Utah right now ready to apply for marriage....
Click to expand...

As I told you, NP, the polygamy argument is a slippery slope. Polygamous releationships have been shown to NOT benefit society. Gay relationships have. Therefore, the government has no reason to sanction polygamous relationships, but does for gay relationships. Now, unless you have some evidence that polygamous relationships DO benefit society and the government, this particular argument is an irrelevant slippery slope that is illogical and does not apply.
 
bicycleman said:
That should also include us conservatives being labeled as bigots since that has occurred more than once. Mind you, it doesn't bother me, but it has happened, none the less.;)
Click to expand...

I would agree with you, there.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
NP, no offense, but this thread isn't about others, either, so don't refer to folks as "left-wingers" if they do not want to be called that.
Click to expand...

OK CC but I will never understand why Liberals are ashamed at being addressed as such.........I don't call all that just the ones that claim to be moderate or independent and in every thread they spout left wing rhetoric.......For instant I try not ot call DD that because he is one and is proud of it.........
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Here's the dilemma, bicycleman. Suppose little Johnny gets into trouble at school and gets expelled. The Principal sends a note home to his parents. Johnny is instructed that if he wants to get back to school, he must have both his mother and father come to school to explain why he should be readmitted to the school. That puts poor little Johnny in a quandary because his father died. Whatever will he do, now?

Do you realize how absolutely ridiculous your example sounds? This is NOT how it occurs. A parent or guardian would be required to do this, not both. Your example is foolish and not part of reality.
Click to expand...

Actually no, because he had an original mother and father. It was still in the natural order of things. He knew his biological father. It would only work if one of his 2 daddies died, then he wouldn't be looked at so troubling. The school authorities would merely assume that his mother had passed away.
 
Navy Pride said:
I think I have the answer for all you gays that want to marry a person of the same sex.........Move to Canada....Gay marriage is legal there and that will never be the case here.......
Click to expand...

Same sex marriage is legal in five states here and recognized in nine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom