• 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

Doesn't answer the question:

Were you able to marry the person that you love, the person that you were sexually attracted to and the person that you CHOSE to spend the rest of your life with?

If so, you have more rights than you are willing to extend to your fellow brothers and sisters simply because they are gay.

Nope I like marriage just like it is..........If gays want to change it then get the people to approve the change..........
 
Nope I like marriage just like it is..........If gays want to change it then get the people to approve the change..........

Still avoiding the question?

Perhaps it is because by admitting the question you are admitting that you feel entitled to special rights and do not want to extend those same rights to others.

Sorry Navy...but Gay people do not have the same rights that you have. You have proven that by your silence on the question.
 
This is stupid. Show the language. Show that. Show that an interracial marriage was not considered a marriage at all.

It wasn't allowed before the definition was changed :doh
There was no such thing as inter-racial marriage because it was illegal...just like gay marriage in many states.
 
Why are you dodging this question? I have not asked it of you before, or any variation of it, nor have I seen you explain this. It was not meant disrespectfully, only wanting to understand your mindset.

I am not dodging it. I have answered it so many times it is getting stupid.

And 3 or four pages from now someone will jump in and ask the same question again. So if you want my answer you can wade through the other posts.

Nothing disrespectful taken, just tired of answering the same questions over and over.
 
It wasn't allowed before the definition was changed :doh

OK. So you can't actually show any documentation of this actual different definition of marriage from the day. Got it.


There was no such thing as inter-racial marriage because it was illegal...just like gay marriage in many states.

That doesn't mean the definition of marriage itself was different. It only disqualified certain people from entering into it with other people.

Today, there are people who can't legally marry -- relatives, people who are already married to someone else, people too young or incompetent. A racial bar to marriage is exactly the same thing -- a restriction, not a definition. A restriction that the Loving court found to be, unlike those other things, irrelevant to the institution. But the definition was not changed.

So no, the argument is not exactly the same. I know it's easier to bring up the bugaboo of "it's exactly like the interracial marriage claim!!!!" -- racism is always an easy emotional triple -- but intellectual honesty demands you do the heavy lifting and compare apples to apples.

I said much earlier in this thread that I think free association is a much better argument, one that may even be compelling. There may also be a persuasive 9th Amendment argument. But equal protection is not the slam dunk you say it is.
 
That doesn't mean the definition of marriage itself was different. It only disqualified certain people from entering into it with other people.

Hmmmmm.....sounds very similar to the situation involving gay marriage...now doesn't it. :doh
 
Hmmmmm.....sounds very similar to the situation involving gay marriage...now doesn't it. :doh

Nope. I already explained why. If you actually are a lawyer, you know I did, and you understood it. If this is your response, then that's all we need to know.
 
Nope. I already explained why. If you actually are a lawyer, you know I did, and you understood it. If this is your response, then that's all we need to know.

These are your own words Harshaw.

" It only disqualified certain people from entering into it with other people."

Isn't that exactly what the anti gay marriage folk are doing? Disqualifying certain people from entering into marriage with other people?

Of course....you will try to spin the definition to fit your limited views. The reality is...these are your own words and they are coming back to bite you in the ass.

That's all anyone needs to now. :2wave:
 
Hmmmmm.....sounds very similar to the situation involving gay marriage...now doesn't it. :doh

It actually sounds nothing like it for them any reasons we have listed over and over again...........
 
These are your own words Harshaw.

" It only disqualified certain people from entering into it with other people."

Isn't that exactly what the anti gay marriage folk are doing? Disqualifying certain people from entering into marriage with other people?

Of course....you will try to spin the definition to fit your limited views. The reality is...these are your own words and they are coming back to bite you in the ass.

That's all anyone needs to now. :2wave:

This is pathetic. I've already dealt with this entire line of argument. Simply repeating what you said does not dispense with what I said. If anyone still cares, they can read it for themselves.

I presented my argument. Your misrepresentation of it, or refusal even to acknowledge it, is either willful or from an inability to understand it. You claim to be lawyer, so it must be willful. But in truth, I don't care either way, because either way, you have no good faith in this argument. Not for the first time, of course.
 
Oh, and my "limited views." I knew it would come to that. You assume, that because I don't buy every single argument for same-sex marriage, even though I twice pointed out the argument I think does work, I must be some kind of seething, bigoted homophobe. Of course. It was inevitable. You are apparently quite incapable of entertaining any ideas outside your OWN views.

My views concern Constitutional interpretation well beyond any single issue, because it's far more important than any single issue, no matter how passionate you personally happen to be about it.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by disneydude

Isn't that exactly what the anti gay marriage folk are doing? Disqualifying certain people from entering into marriage with other people?

Don't you Sir, disqualify certain people from entering marriage?
 
Any arguments that it must lead to legalized pedophilia are easily dispensed with.

Polygamy, not so much.
 
Oh goody. Here comes the polygamy/pedophilia argument.

Prior to any oh goody argument though, would be Disney's answer.

And, my argument is one of process not polygamy or pedophilia. You both deny two people marriage for many different reasons and you use the government to do it. This isn't true?
 
Prior to any oh goody argument though, would be Disney's answer.

And, my argument is one of process not polygamy or pedophilia. You both deny two people marriage for many different reasons and you use the government to do it. This isn't true?

Yes. I deny marriage that would not be markedly beneficial to families and society. Unfortunately for your argument, same sex marriage is beneficial to families and society.
 
Yes. I deny marriage that would not be markedly beneficial to families and society.

1) What other legal contract do you deny between two based on a beneficial to families argument?
2) Is it the government you use to deny this...non-beneficial to families marriage?
3) Guess this ends any government involved in marriage debate and whether the legislative branch of government should define what benefits society and family?
4) Won't what's beneficial to families and society differ from community to community, state to state?
5) Guess that ends any debate on whether this a state or federal issue?
6) And who are you to deny anything based on your idea of "markedly beneficial" to society or families?


Unfortunately for your argument, same sex marriage is beneficial to families and society.

You can give me any evidence whatsoever polygamy isn't beneficial, it's been a reality in every culture. Can you accept others would argue you had no right to deny them a legal contract based on being already in one? You seem to be more than willing to define marriage based on your own moral compass and then deny others that same right. Cause you see, CT...this is the Right we should be holding dear. The Right of We the People to define our won institutions based on what we onsider beneficial to society. Different people will have different definitions and so through representation or referendum, we cut our teeth, define our culture..and we move on. I'm glad to see we can at least agree on that.
 
Prior to any oh goody argument though, would be Disney's answer.

And, my argument is one of process not polygamy or pedophilia. You both deny two people marriage for many different reasons and you use the government to do it. This isn't true?

Charles is right. Thats my argument.

Try to keep the beatings you take straight. (no pun intended)

Yes. I deny marriage that would not be markedly beneficial to families and society.

Wow. You just lost in amazing color.

You my friend just made a moral judgment, no different than people who make moral judgments against homosexual marriage.

Welcome to the club :)

Unfortunately for your argument, same sex marriage is beneficial to families and society.

And another moral judgment! You are certainly on a roll.
 
Last edited:
Not surprising just a week after New Jersey showed gays the civil union door, there have been over a thousand posts here on the resulting thread. Read through a few and its the same advocates putting forth same statements just like they did after we defeated them here in California.

The legal difference, taxations, and public social benefits between homosexual civil unions and heterosexual marriage may be equivalent in many states now, however it is important that they are not called the same thing. There are large numbers Christians who believe what their Bible says about the seriousness of marriage as directed by God. That God condemned a number of taboos as grave abominations including incest, adultery, and specifically men laying with men or women with women. To equate any of these taboo behaviors considered abominations to something we consider so important as marriage will never ever be acceptable to us despite how many liberal judges, politicians, or media personalities try to force such down our throats because the Bible is everlasting.
 
Last edited:
Charles is right. Thats my argument.

Try to keep the beatings you take straight. (no pun intended)

Wow. You just lost in amazing color.

You my friend just made a moral judgment, no different than people who make moral judgments against homosexual marriage.

Welcome to the club :)

And another moral judgment! You are certainly on a roll.

Why am I not allowed to make moral judgments? I've argued both sides of the same sex marriage debate, and the reason and evidence lies with the same sex marriage side, but you guys only care about your own little moral judgments. So I'll make one.

Polygamy is inherently degrading to society. Same sex marriage is not. Evidence and reason can tell you that much.
 
Not surprising just a week after New Jersey showed gays the civil union door, there have been over a thousand posts here on the resulting thread. Read through a few and its the same advocates putting forth same statements just like they did after we defeated them here in California.

The legal difference, taxations, and public social benefits between homosexual civil unions and heterosexual marriage may be equivalent in many states now, however it is important that they are not called the same thing. There are large numbers Christians who believe what their Bible says about the seriousness of marriage as directed by God. That God condemned a number of taboos as grave abominations including incest, adultery, and specifically men laying with men or women with women. To equate any of these taboo behaviors considered abominations to something we consider so important as marriage will never ever be acceptable to us despite how many liberal judges, politicians, or media personalities try to force such down our throats because the Bible is everlasting.

Thanks for being upfront and honest.

I agree 100%
 
Why am I not allowed to make moral judgments? I've argued both sides of the same sex marriage debate, and the reason and evidence lies with the same sex marriage side, but you guys only care about your own little moral judgments. So I'll make one.

Of course you can make moral judgments. But you just dont get the hypocrisy do you? You are arguing for gay marriage based on a moral not factual argument while belittling many who make the same moral argument against gay marriage.

Polygamy is inherently degrading to society. Same sex marriage is not. Evidence and reason can tell you that much.

Those are opinions not facts.

Unless you are prepared to provide factual evidence that polygamy is degrading to a society just for starters you'd best retract your moral statement.
 
I would like to find a non religious person just once who is against same sex marriage. And I don't mean someone who is against all civilly recognized marriage, but someone who is just against same sex marriage who has no religion.

2009-06-08-swineflu04a.jpg
 
I would like to find a non religious person just once who is against same sex marriage. And I don't mean someone who is against all civilly recognized marriage, but someone who is just against same sex marriage who has no religion.

View attachment 67109959

You've found one. My religion plays zero bearing into my stance against gay marriage.
 
Back
Top Bottom