• 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

Blackdog said:
So what?

Makes no difference. I will take what I have seen over that.
Click to expand...

Yes, the couple gay people you have known are a much more reliable source than an actual study of data. I am sure you will draw a much more accurate picture from your lack of data than you ever could from real data.

I hate with a passion people who, when confronted with facts that prove them wrong, just stick their fingers in their ears and go "NA NA NA NA NA" as loud as they can.
 
Redress said:
Yes, the couple gay people you have known are a much more reliable source than an actual study of data. I am sure you will draw a much more accurate picture from your lack of data than you ever could from real data.
Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not.

Redress said:
I hate with a passion people who, when confronted with facts that prove them wrong, just stick their fingers in their ears and go "NA NA NA NA NA" as loud as they can.
Click to expand...

You mean like you did with the whole "separate but equal" thing? :mrgreen:

The fact is I don't care because no matter what facts etc you post, it will not change the fact that a man with a man, or a woman with a woman does not make a marraige. It takes a man and a woman to make a marraige. Anything else is just a union of two people.

I have also repeated many times I think it is a state, and not Federal issue.

In the end I don't care what you or anyone else thinks about it, really I don't.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
Maybe, maybe not.
Click to expand...

Anecdotal evidence is always of questionable value. Can't imagine why I would question the anecdotal evidence of some one whose anecdotal evidence confirms what he wants to believe, and flies in the face of the research done on the subject.



You mean like you did with the whole "separate but equal" thing? :mrgreen:

The fact is I don't care because no matter what facts etc you post, it will not change the fact that a man with a man, or a woman with a woman does not make a marraige. It takes a man and a woman to make a marraige. Anything else is just a union of two people.

I have also repeated many times I think it is a state, and not Federal issue.

In the end I don't care what you or anyone else thinks about it, really I don't.
Click to expand...

Your point with separate but equal was flawed.

You are describing what you want marriage to be defined as. To me, two people who love each other and want to make a life commitment are married. Their genders are irrelevant.

You have failed to show how it would work as a state issue. Are there, or are there not, federal benefits of marriage? Of course there are. As long as that is the case, then it is not a state issue. At some point, for gays to have the same benefits as strait couples, then it needs to be handled on a national level. State level is a cop out.
 
Blackdog said:
Please, you just went through this with Jerry.

Go read his responces.

I have seen no evidence at all that says the majority of gay couples want to adopt or raise children.

I mean I admit I am going on anecdotal evidence from the gay community's in Chicago and San Fransisco. I lived in both places for years (how I got over my initial homophobia) and again I saw nothing that would lead me to believe your comment is true.
Click to expand...

I reject your anecdotal evidence. In fact, I'll see your anecdotal evidence with that of my own (from lots in the NYC area) and raise you plenty of research.

I don't think you've got enough chips on the table to beat that, Blackdog.
 
Blackdog said:
The fact is I don't care because no matter what facts etc you post, it will not change the fact that a man with a man, or a woman with a woman does not make a marraige. It takes a man and a woman to make a marraige. Anything else is just a union of two people.
Click to expand...

You forgot to finish your sentence. Here, let me help:

The fact is I don't care because no matter what facts etc you post, it will not change the fact that a man with a man, or a woman with a woman does not make a marraige. It takes a man and a woman to make a marraige. Anything else is just a union of two people IN MY OPINION.
Click to expand...

There. Much more accurate.

I have also repeated many times I think it is a state, and not Federal issue.

In the end I don't care what you or anyone else thinks about it, really I don't.
Click to expand...

That's fine. As long as you understand that you are offering no facts, but just opinion, I can accept that.
 
Personally, I reject the separate but equal issue in this case, as long as this becomes a federal issue, and NOT a state issue. If that is the case, and all benefits are equal, all rights are equal, and all abilities are equal, they could call it macaroni and it would be fine.
 
Redress said:
Anecdotal evidence is always of questionable value. Can't imagine why I would question the anecdotal evidence of some one whose anecdotal evidence confirms what he wants to believe, and flies in the face of the research done on the subject.
Click to expand...

Never said you should trust it. I am not trying to convince you of anything. ;)

Redress said:
Your point with separate but equal was flawed.
Click to expand...

Funny how you failed to show that.

Redress said:
You are describing what you want marriage to be defined as. To me, two people who love each other and want to make a life commitment are married. Their genders are irrelevant.
Click to expand...

No I am telling you what marraige has been defined as throughout our history in this country. It is or was a religious institution taken by the government when this was abused on the grounds of race.

Redress said:
You have failed to show how it would work as a state issue.
Click to expand...

I have not shown it to be a state issue. I said it is a state issue?

Sort of puts a wrinkle in your statemet.

Redress said:
Are there, or are there not, federal benefits of marriage? Of course there are.
Click to expand...

And they would be recognized if it is a civil union in that state or approved by that state.

WOW! How simple is that!

Redress said:
As long as that is the case, then it is not a state issue.
Click to expand...

This is not the case as I have shown above.

Redress said:
At some point, for gays to have the same benefits as strait couples, then it needs to be handled on a national level. State level is a cop out.
Click to expand...

The evidence does not point to this conclusion.

But again, I don't care.
 
Blackdog said:
The interest is in a stable family unit and the rearing of children to become productive citizens. Since most gay couple (not all) have little or no interest in rearing children, the state has little interest.
Click to expand...

Securing rights for group B don't hinge on whether group A thinks it would benefit society.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
You forgot to finish your sentence. Here, let me help:
Click to expand...

No I did not.

CaptainCourtesy said:
There. Much more accurate.
Click to expand...

I have gotten infractions for doing EXACTLY the same thing?

Oh wait, you took my name out. Dose this make a difference?

Seriously, I am asking not trying to insult you Cap.

CaptainCourtesy said:
That's fine. As long as you understand that you are offering no facts, but just opinion, I can accept that.
Click to expand...

It is a fact that a marraige is between a man and a woman. This is a fact under the law and traditions of this country.

That is NOT an opinion.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
No I did not.



I have gotten infractions for doing EXACTLY the same thing?

Oh wait, you took my name out. Dose this make a difference?

Seriously, I am asking not trying to insult you Cap.
Click to expand...

An infraction would occur if I did not identify that I changed your post. I did, indicating that what I wrote was NOT what you wrote; they were my comments. Doing that is OK. It's when someone misrepresents another's post without a disclaimer that problems will occur.

No offense taken. You asked a question.



It is a fact that a marraige is between a man and a woman. This is a fact under the law and traditions of this country.

That is NOT an opinion.
Click to expand...

You did not indicate that you were speaking from a legal standpoint. If you were, then you are correct.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
An infraction would occur if I did not identify that I changed your post. I did, indicating that what I wrote was NOT what you wrote; they were my comments. Doing that is OK. It's when someone misrepresents another's post without a disclaimer that problems will occur.

No offense taken. You asked a question.
Click to expand...

Ahhh OK.

Blackdog, his eyes open!

CaptainCourtesy said:
You did not indicate that you were speaking from a legal standpoint. If you were, then you are correct.
Click to expand...

Actually I was speaking purely from a religious, legal and traditional standpoint.

To be honest don't know that much about the legal terms etc. but I am trying to understand.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
In your opinion, not mine.
Click to expand...

But of course.

I do find it amusing how you guys go back and forth on this issue. You guys are all wrong on this. Imagine if all of our rights were predicated on their benefit to society.
 
Blackdog said:
Ahhh OK.

Blackdog, his eyes open!
Click to expand...

Is that a Star Trek reference?



Actually I was speaking purely from a religious, legal and traditional standpoint.

To be honest don't know that much about the legal terms etc. but I am trying to understand.
Click to expand...

Legally, you would be correct... and this is justifiable and evidence-based in debate. Religious-wise and traditionally, you would also be correct, but when debating, these do not prove your position nor do they support the legal definition. They can be refuted through the use of logical fallacies.
 
Blackdog said:
It is a fact that a marraige is between a man and a woman. This is a fact under the law and traditions of this country.

That is NOT an opinion.
Click to expand...

Actually it is a fact that marriage is between two persons in 8 states, 5 of which have same sex marriage and 3 of which recognize same sex marriage from other states. It is also a fact that neither law nor tradition represent whether something is right or wrong. Slavery, segregation, and bans on interracial marriage were the tradition and law in this country at one point, but that did not make it right.

Your legal, traditional, and religious argument are irrelevant to the issue of same sex marriage.
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
Actually it is a fact that marriage is between two persons in 8 states, 5 of which have same sex marriage and 3 of which recognize same sex marriage from other states. It is also a fact that neither law nor tradition represent whether something is right or wrong. Slavery, segregation, and bans on interracial marriage were the tradition and law in this country at one point, but that did not make it right.

Your legal, traditional, and religious argument are irrelevant to the issue of same sex marriage.
Click to expand...

8 out of 50 States.

The only thing irrelevant here is your argument. :2wave:
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Is that a Star Trek reference?
Click to expand...

The Captain at DP. ;)

CaptainCourtesy said:
Legally, you would be correct... and this is justifiable and evidence-based in debate. Religious-wise and traditionally, you would also be correct, but when debating, these do not prove your position nor do they support the legal definition. They can be refuted through the use of logical fallacies.
Click to expand...

Of course they could, it does not change my view so people like "critical thought" can just keep waisting time.

Two men is not, and will never be a marraige in my eyes.
 
Blackdog said:
8 out of 50 States.
Click to expand...

So? You were arguing that it was universally defined as between a man and a woman in this country. That is not true. Not a fact. Wrong.

If you wish to make an Argumentum ad populum and argue that your definition is true because many people believe it, then have at it, but I prefer rational discussion.

The only thing irrelevant here is your argument. :2wave:
Click to expand...

My argument was merely a counterargument to your fallacious statement. It served it's purpose, as is clear by your lack of rebuttal.
 
Blackdog said:
The Captain at DP. ;)



Of course they could, it does not change my view so people like "critical thought" can just keep waisting time.

Two men is not, and will never be a marraige in my eyes.
Click to expand...

Couldn't we argue that you are wasting our time as well, since we are not going to change our views due to your opinion?
 
Redress said:
Couldn't we argue that you are wasting our time as well, since we are not going to change our views due to your opinion?
Click to expand...

No. I am not the one asking the questions or trying to change your views. I stated how I see it according to the original post. You and others decided I was wrong and put in your comments, and then asked the same questions over and over because for what ever reason you did not like my answer.

:2wave:
 
Blackdog said:
No. I am not the one asking the questions or trying to change your views. I stated how I see it according to the original post. You and others decided I was wrong and put in your comments, and then asked the same questions over and over because for what ever reason you did not like my answer.

:2wave:
Click to expand...

I am not trying to change your views, I am trying to point out the flaws so that open minded people might see the flaws in your views. That is a rather significant distinction. As far as the question, you have yet to answer how different is the same.
 
CriticalThought said:
So? You were arguing that it was universally defined as between a man and a woman in this country. That is not true. Not a fact. Wrong.
Click to expand...

You have yet to prove this? So far it is just your opinion from 8 out of 50 states. The rest of the states would disagree as some have even gone so far as to write it into there Constitutions.

CriticalThought said:
If you wish to make an Argumentum ad populum and argue that your definition is true because many people believe it, then have at it, but I prefer rational discussion.
Click to expand...

Which is pretty much what you tried to do.

CriticalThought said:
My argument was merely a counterargument to your fallacious statement. It served it's purpose, as is clear by your lack of rebuttal.
Click to expand...

No need, you are wrong according to the majority of the country and it's laws.

Anything else?
 
Redress said:
I am not trying to change your views, I am trying to point out the flaws so that open minded people might see the flaws in your views. That is a rather significant distinction. As far as the question, you have yet to answer how different is the same.
Click to expand...

The "flaw" is your opinion of the situation. So far you have not pointed out much but a group of surveys that may or may not be true.

I have shown multiple times why it is not a marraige, and why it is not separate under the law. You are trying to say because it is not called "marraige" it is somehow separate. I have shown this is bogus and you ignore it.

You choose not to like my answer for whatever reason, but you have shown nothing as of yet that proves it is separate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom