• 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

JustineCredible said:
Uh, no.

This is where you are totally wrong.
The idea of marriage dates back WAY before popular religions deemed it as such. It was originally a transfer of wealth...or property..which the "wife" was part of.
Click to expand...

That's never been the tradition of marriage in this country, which was based in Christianity from the get-go. I'm not talking about the days in ancient worlds when people traded off their oldest daughter for two pigs and a lamb.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
The reports that claim the opposite that I have seen have major methodological flaws and are not credible. Folks who claim they have changed are a different matter and a different discussion. We would first have to discuss the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior.
Click to expand...


Again just like global warming there are two sides to the issue and both are adament they are right........
 
Erod said:
Again, dreadfully wrong. The err in the Virginia ruling is obviously steeped in racism and is wrong in every way. The New Jersey ruling is simply to maintain the definition of what marriage is and always has been, and it is based in simple first-grade common sense.
Click to expand...

Really? Because when my son was a first grader, he could see that anti-same-sex marriage laws were wrong!

Racism and Homophobia...both are harmful to equality. How you can separate the two and say they aren't similar is ignorant.
 
Redress said:
What you do not note is that the number who find homosexuality is declining steadily, and the number who find is morally acceptable are rising even faster. Source: Americans Evenly Divided on Morality of Homosexuality

2001: 40 % acceptable, 53 % morally wrong
2008: 48 % for both.

I suspect that this trend will continue and possibly accelerate. SCOTUS might decide it before the numbers change enough to make it so it passes voter initiatives, but it is not needed. It will within the next few years start passing based on voter initiatives.
Click to expand...

What I don't understand is if America is evenly divided on the subject why do you lose every vote by the people when put on the ballot? Maybe the people that took your poll are a little bias?
 
JustineCredible said:
Really? Because when my son was a first grader, he could see that anti-same-sex marriage laws were wrong!

Racism and Homophobia...both are harmful to equality. How you can separate the two and say they aren't similar is ignorant.
Click to expand...

No, what is ignorant is to equate two men getting married to a man and woman who want to have a family. No one defeated Rome; it imploded from within for exactly the kind of twisted reasonings that alows a 60-year-old man to marry an 18-year-old Cambodian kid and move in next door.
 
JustineCredible said:
It's ironic though, since SCOTUS is SUPPOSED to be an activist court. They're job is to interpret the Constitution and make sure laws follow its jurisprudence.
Click to expand...

An activist court is one that rules in ways you disagree with. It's one of those laughable terms that is mostly without meaning.
 
Erod said:
That's never been the tradition of marriage in this country, which was based in Christianity from the get-go. I'm not talking about the days in ancient worlds when people traded off their oldest daughter for two pigs and a lamb.
Click to expand...

Funny how they always limit a marriage to just this country and basing it on Christianity which this country was based on while completely ignoring the fact that Christianity dates back a couple of thousand years. Yet the church didn't even get involved in marriages until just a few hundred years ago. (1563 to be exact)
 
American said:
Separation is irrelevant here, the church is part of the debate whether you like it or not. You can't dismiss their words or actions.
Click to expand...

Actually, when it comes to the laws of this country, Yes I can.
 
Erod said:
LOL. Uh, no.

Marriage at its heart is a religious commitment steeped in the tradition of starting a family.

To the shallow and anti-religious, it is a contract to be nullified as soon as a chance to **** someone comes along and you get caught.
Click to expand...

:spin: all you like, but anthropology will out. Marriage is a property contract.

Do you dispute the fact women were treated like chattel?
 
Warspite said:
Yep, two consenting adults of legal standing.
Click to expand...
So... I can marry my grandma and such a relationship is 'equal' to a heterosexual relationship so long as we're both consenting adults?
 
Taylor said:
So... I can marry my grandma and such a relationship is 'equal' to a heterosexual relationship so long as we're both consenting adults?
Click to expand...

You can give your grandma power of attorney and you can give your grandma total inheritance of your estate. However, if you were having an intimate relationship with your grandma, the state has a vested interest in stopping said relationship due to the genetic issues involved in your procreating with grandma.
 
Taylor said:
So... I can marry my grandma and such a relationship is 'equal' to a heterosexual relationship so long as we're both consenting adults?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't do it personally, but whatever floats your boat.

Civil rights means protecting the things you hate as well as the things you like.
 
Warspite said:
I wouldn't do it personally, but whatever floats your boat.

Civil rights means protecting the things you hate as well as the things you like.
Click to expand...
Good luck with that position in the courts. :mrgreen:
 
jallman said:
You can give your grandma power of attorney and you can give your grandma total inheritance of your estate. However, if you were having an intimate relationship with your grandma, the state has a vested interest in stopping said relationship due to the genetic issues involved in your procreating with grandma.
Click to expand...
Grandma is too old to procreate.
 
Taylor said:
Grandma is too old to procreate.
Click to expand...

Supposedly. Stranger things have happened.

And that's beside the point. We have social mores that make it clear that an intimate relationship between and grandparent and grandchild are not acceptable. In fact, I think we have actual laws against it.
 
Taylor said:
Grandma is too old to procreate.
Click to expand...

Then there is no vested interest for the state to interfere.

I would also like to point out the delta between marriage and children - the two are not dependent on each other.
 
Kal'Stang said:
:doh
Did you read the quoted part? Mr.V was clearly talking about the defination and not about changing the law.
Click to expand...

Read the OP again. Its about changing the law.
 
Warspite said:
It was actually a Supreme Court justice who said that on the topic of hate speech.
Click to expand...
I was referring to your position that any "two consenting adults of equal standing" should be allowed to marry, or it is a civil rights issue.

No Supreme Court justice is going to agree with that.
 
jallman said:
Supposedly. Stranger things have happened.

And that's beside the point. We have social mores that make it clear that an intimate relationship between and grandparent and grandchild are not acceptable. In fact, I think we have actual laws against it.
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree, not acceptable. Not an infringement on civil rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom