• 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

I might add that is your opinion...There are a lot of people out there that might disagree with you...

I will give you another example............you have 2 sisters living together who would love to have the benefits that marriage provides..........This is a non sexual relationship.............they both are straight........If gays can marry under the 14th amendment equal protection law why can't they?

You are now making an excellent argument for the abolition of government sanctioned marriage and all the benefits that go along with it. However, to your specific point, you are talking about an incestuous relationship... as perceived by law, I believe. These kinds of relationships, like polygamy do not benefit society or the government.
 
with all due respect you are unreal.......

Much like 90% of what you post.

And you forgot this....

"The military is different from anything else and has different rules.

Now again I ask were in civilian life is this gender discrimination?
"
 
Last edited:
You are now making an excellent argument for the abolition of government sanctioned marriage and all the benefits that go along with it. However, to your specific point, you are talking about an incestuous relationship... as perceived by law, I believe. These kinds of relationships, like polygamy do not benefit society or the government.

I would argue that if they are raising children, they are not only entitled to 'marriage, but society is obligated to give them 'marriage for the benefit of the children.
 
CC your a reasonable man............don't you think a mother can bring something in a marriage that two fathers can't........I don't care what some survey says and I use the words common sense again........

NP, I am not saying that a mother or father do not bring something to a family. What I am saying is that a two-parent household regardless of the genders of the parents works best for children. Every study that I have seen that takes issue with either a mother or father being out of the household is done in regards to SINGLE parent households. We already know that children from single parent households, statistically, don't do as well as those from two parent households. There is nothing that shows, however, that children from single sex households suffer from no having one of the two genders present in the house. In fact, all the data shows that these children do as well as those who have both.

"Common sense", NP can be proven wrong.
 
I could evidence that for polygamy, but as it's a bit of a tangent I'll wait until there's a genuine polygamy 'marriage news event to argue it in earnest.

Bull. If you have it, then PM it to me, but I know for a fact that no such evidence exists.
 
I would argue that if they are raising children, they are not only entitled to 'marriage, but society is obligated to give them 'marriage for the benefit of the children.

Very interesting position, Jerry. Kinda goes along with what you and I have been saying for a long time on the family component of this entire issue. I must ponder this, but my initial reaction is that you are absolutely correct and that I would agree.
 
CC your a reasonable man............don't you think a mother can bring something in a marriage that two fathers can't........I don't care what some survey says and I use the words common sense again........

Could you care to explain specifically what it is that a father can bring to a child that a mother cannot or what a mother can bring to a child that a father cannot? If indeed there is something, then I'm assuming you can explain it.
 
Very interesting position, Jerry. Kinda goes along with what you and I have been saying for a long time on the family component of this entire issue. I must ponder this, but my initial reaction is that you are absolutely correct and that I would agree.

You do realize that he also believes that all marriages should be rendered null and void if children are not in the picture, right?
 
The Constitution is not based on biblical truths. It is based on reason dating back farther than the bible. Even back to Babylon.
Wrong.

The Constitution had many influences, but in terms of ancient writings it was Greeks and Romans that were the great influence. Now if you want to argue that the FF were influenced indirectly by Babylon through the Greeks - but wish to deny any indirect influence from the Bible on the FF or via the Mayflower Compact or English Common Law -- then you are being either disingenuous or incredibly naive.
 
Wrong.

The Constitution had many influences, but in terms of ancient writings it was Greeks and Romans that were the great influence. Now if you want to argue that the FF were influenced indirectly by Babylon through the Greeks - but wish to deny any indirect influence from the Bible on the FF or via the Mayflower Compact or English Common Law -- then you are being either disingenuous or incredibly naive.

Are you reading what I said?

I said not BASED on it, said nothing about no influences. It is influenced by the bulk of our learning to that point from many sources, going all the way back to the Babylonians.

Next time actually read what I said. Don't put words in my mouth, and you can lose the phony righteous indignation. :roll:
 
You do realize that he also believes that all marriages should be rendered null and void if children are not in the picture, right?

I'm not sure that is Jerry's position. Jerry and I have had many, MANY discussions on this issue over the past 3 years and, unless it has changed, I think I understand his position pretty well. I don't think that is part of it.
 
It certainly can be. We have lots of laws that discriminate based on gender.

You still have not shown all these laws.

Outside of the military it has been pretty much erased.

Want to try again?
 
You are now making an excellent argument for the abolition of government sanctioned marriage and all the benefits that go along with it. However, to your specific point, you are talking about an incestuous relationship... as perceived by law, I believe. These kinds of relationships, like polygamy do not benefit society or the government.

No its not.........The two sisters I mentioned are only marrying for the benefits provided by the government...they are both as straight as and arrrow and would never engage in sex with one another.

There are a lot of us out here that say gay marriage does not benefit society in any way in fact it degrades society and the sacrament of marriage.........
 
I have a multitude of studies that I have posted at DP many times that show that children who are reared by same-sex couples do just as well as those by opposite sex couples.
To be more accurate, you have posted studies that show that children who are reared by same-sex couples do "just as well" on test designed to measure certain aspects of upbringing that researchers who choose to do such research deem relevant.

I think it's fair to say that the literature in this area has a long way to go.
 
You still have not shown all these laws.

Outside of the military it has been pretty much erased.

Want to try again?

I have but you refuse to acknowledge it...........If you won't acknowledge a fact then what is the point in even debating with you..............Bye Bye
 
You do realize that he also believes that all marriages should be rendered null and void if children are not in the picture, right?

Not just present tense, but past and future tense also.
 
Much like 90% of what you post.

And you forgot this....

"The military is different from anything else and has different rules.

Now again I ask were in civilian life is this gender discrimination?
"

Ok, the fire department.......There are jobs in the fire department that exclude women...........Laugh that one off........
 
No its not.........The two sisters I mentioned are only marrying for the benefits provided by the government...they are both as straight as and arrrow and would never engage in sex with one another.

Well, Jerry proposed an interesting bent on this. If the two people are caring for a child, I can see it being reasonable for them to have all the benefits of marriage. Beyond that, there is no information that shows that this relationship is as beneficial as any relationship that a straight or gay couple would have.

Good point, though, NP. :)

See? NP CAN debate. ;)

There are a lot of us out here that say gay marriage does not benefit society in any in fact it degrades society and the sacrament of marriage.........

And those people would be wrong... they are speaking from bias, not information.
 
To be more accurate, you have posted studies that show that children who are reared by same-sex couples do "just as well" on test designed to measure certain aspects of upbringing that researchers who choose to do such research deem relevant.

I think it's fair to say that the literature in this area has a long way to go.

I also think it's fair to say that there is no valid research that disputes the research that demonstrates what I have said.
 
Well, Jerry proposed an interesting bent on this. If the two people are caring for a child, I can see it being reasonable for them to have all the benefits of marriage. Beyond that, there is no information that shows that this relationship is as beneficial as any relationship that a straight or gay couple would have.

There is government insurance and combined social security just to name a couple of benefits provided to married couples as well as the benefi you mentioned......

And those people would be wrong... they are speaking from bias, not information

I don't know what point they are speaking from but alot believe that gay marriage degrades straight marriage and degrades society .that is their opinion as it is yours........
 
There is government insurance and combined social security just to name a couple of benefits provided to married couples as well as the benefi you mentioned......

And if children are involved I could see how it benefits society/the government. Outside of that, there is no evidence that it would or does.



I don't know what point they are speaking from but alot believe that gay marriage degrades straight marriage and degrades society .that is their opinion as it is yours........

This is where we part, NP. It may be their opinion, but they have no facts to base this on. I DO.
 
How about selective service? Or that women are awarded custody of children at an overwhelming rate?

You call that discrimination? Not selective service, but awarding children to the mothers.

The mothers tend to be more nurturing and men do not. It is natural law more than our laws.

Either way, this is not allot.
 
Back
Top Bottom