• 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

Navy Pride said:
I would like to see you people on the left quit trying to compare the plight of Blacks with the plight gays face.........The two situations are nothing alike...It is ridiculous to even make the comparison and you are insulting Balcks by doing so..........
Click to expand...

There are similarities. Both groups where looked down on and denied the right to do certain things by factors beyond their control.
 
Redress said:
There are similarities. Both groups where looked down on and denied the right to do certain things by factors beyond their control.
Click to expand...

Similarities...based on being "looked down on" and "denied the right to do certain things??":roll:

Yeah, let's just start basing or changing our entire legal structure to implement this brilliance.

For the love of God.:shock:
 
Charles Martel said:
Similarities...based on being "looked down on" and "denied the right to do certain things??":roll:

Yeah, let's just start basing or changing our entire legal structure to implement this brilliance.

For the love of God.:shock:
Click to expand...

Nothing like taking something out of context. Note my comment was in response to a comment about there being no similarities...
 
Redress said:
Nothing like taking something out of context. Note my comment was in response to a comment about there being no similarities...
Click to expand...

Context is the problem. African Americans being denied marriage based on the color of their skin is immoral and was corrected, the majority of ethnic Americans today oppose same sex marriage and consider your attempt to make analogies to race out of context.:cool:
 
Navy Pride said:
I would like to see you people on the left quit trying to compare the plight of Blacks with the plight gays face.........The two situations are nothing alike...It is ridiculous to even make the comparison and you are insulting Balcks by doing so..........
Click to expand...

Sorry Navy...but it isn't. The same bigoted views that are applied to gays are similar to the same bigoted views that were applied to blacks.

The same bigoted argument that the definition of marriage shouldn't be changed to include inter-racial marriage...is the same bigoted argument that the definition of marriage shouldn't be changed to include gay marriage.

The same bigoted argument that the children of inter-racial couples would suffer is the same bigoted argument that the children of gay couples will suffer.

People who seek to preserve discrimination use whatever arguments are at their disposal and all you have to do is look at the historical arguments used by bigots against inter-racial marriage and you see that they are the same that are being used today.

People who fought inter-racial marriage felt that they were in the right and that god was on their side the same way that the anti-gay marriage folk feel that they are justified in their discrimination. There is no difference.
 
Charles Martel said:
Context is the problem. African Americans being denied marriage based on the color of their skin is immoral and was corrected, the majority of ethnic Americans today oppose same sex marriage and consider your attempt to make analogies to race out of context.:cool:
Click to expand...

The opinion of ethnic groups is irrelevant to the accuracy of a statement. Accuracy is not a popularity contest.
 
Redress said:
The opinion of ethnic groups is irrelevant to the accuracy of a statement.
Click to expand...

Too true, your accuracy wasn't questioned. Black and gay members of our society have similarly been looked down on and denied the right to do certain things.

But, Navy's point was that the two situations are completely different, and your "similarities" had nothing to do with the situation. His statements are based on the fact that race nor skin color is comparable to sexual orientation. So, where your statement is accurate, it's not relevant.

My point addressed the very relevant point in the discussion...pointing out that most black americans.....those who many observers feel as a group has experienced the most extreme of being looked down upon and denied rights..doesn't see it the same way. I believe it's relevant even if you don't, Navy as well considered it relevant.
 
Charles Martel said:
Too true, your accuracy wasn't questioned. Black and gay members of our society have similarly been looked down on and denied the right to do certain things.

But, Navy's point was that the two situations are completely different, and your "similarities" had nothing to do with the situation. His statements are based on the fact that race nor skin color is comparable to sexual orientation. So, where your statement is accurate, it's not relevant.

My point addressed the very relevant point in the discussion...pointing out that most black americans.....those who many observers feel as a group has experienced the most extreme of being looked down upon and denied rights..doesn't see it the same way. I believe it's relevant even if you don't, Navy as well considered it relevant.
Click to expand...

So you agree there are similarities, but they are not any similarities?

Race and skin color and sexual orientation are all things beyond some one's control. Hey look, they are comparable.

Again, validity is not popularity.
 
Redress said:
So you agree there are similarities, but they are not any similarities?
Click to expand...

I agree there are plenty of irrelevant similarities, I've been looked down upon for being a proud neo-con and been denied rights as far as this health care bill is concerned. Which is about as relevant as your looked down upon and denied rights claim.

Race and skin color and sexual orientation are all things beyond some one's control. Hey look, they are comparable.
Click to expand...

But, our society defining marriage isn't beyond our control even though many would like it that way.
 
disneydude said:
The same bigoted argument that the definition of marriage shouldn't be changed to include inter-racial marriage
Click to expand...

It wasn't. The definition of marriage did not change. To any extent that it did, was changed to exclude interracial marriage.

But that didn't even happen. There were restrictions as to who could enter into it with whom, but the fundamental definition was the same either way.


is the same bigoted argument that the definition of marriage shouldn't be changed to include gay marriage.
Click to expand...

It's not the same argument at all. It may well be a bigoted, wrong argument, but it's not the same argument.
 
Redress said:
There are similarities. Both groups where looked down on and denied the right to do certain things by factors beyond their control.
Click to expand...

Again gays have the same right I do.........they can marry anyone of the opposite sex exactly as I can........They are trying to establish a soecial right for them......Why don't you inderstand that......Why don't you understand that if you allow gays to marry then you have to allow other groups as classes of people to have the same right..Maybe you have no problem with that but I do..............
 
Navy Pride said:
Why don't you understand that if you allow gays to marry then you have to allow other groups as classes of people to have the same right
Click to expand...
Slippery slope fallacy. Fail.
 
Redress said:
Nothing like taking something out of context. Note my comment was in response to a comment about there being no similarities...
Click to expand...


Hell you can say there are similarities between dogs and cats.......There is no question that you can tell a black person.......
As far as a gay person unless they flaunt their sexuality you would not even know they were gay.......
 
Harshaw said:
It wasn't. The definition of marriage did not change. To any extent that it did, was changed to exclude interracial marriage.

But that didn't even happen. There were restrictions as to who could enter into it with whom, but the fundamental definition was the same either way.




It's not the same argument at all. It may well be a bigoted, wrong argument, but it's not the same argument.
Click to expand...

Sure it was. Prior to changing the definition, marriage was defined as marriage between a man and a woman of the same race. That definition was changed.

As you point out, the restrictions changed who could enter into it with whom.
How is gay marriage any different than that?
 
disneydude said:
Sorry Navy...but it isn't. The same bigoted views that are applied to gays are similar to the same bigoted views that were applied to blacks.

The same bigoted argument that the definition of marriage shouldn't be changed to include inter-racial marriage...is the same bigoted argument that the definition of marriage shouldn't be changed to include gay marriage.

The same bigoted argument that the children of inter-racial couples would suffer is the same bigoted argument that the children of gay couples will suffer.

People who seek to preserve discrimination use whatever arguments are at their disposal and all you have to do is look at the historical arguments used by bigots against inter-racial marriage and you see that they are the same that are being used today.

People who fought inter-racial marriage felt that they were in the right and that god was on their side the same way that the anti-gay marriage folk feel that they are justified in their discrimination. There is no difference.
Click to expand...

You insult every black person in this country when you make that comparison.......If you want to make a comparison between gay and Polygamysts that would be fine because both groups are identified by a lifestyle.....There is no comparison between a black person's lifesyle and a gay lifestyl.....Black are born black,,,,,,,gays are not born that way...I usally don't put it that way but as long as you continue to make the comparison I will do it...........
 
Navy Pride said:
Again gays have the same right I do.........they can marry anyone of the opposite sex exactly as I can........They are trying to establish a soecial right for them......Why don't you inderstand that......Why don't you understand that if you allow gays to marry then you have to allow other groups as classes of people to have the same right..Maybe you have no problem with that but I do..............
Click to expand...

Really Navy? When you chose to get married, were you able to marry the person that you were in love with? Were you able to marry a person that you were sexually attracted to? Were you able to marry the person who above all others you CHOSE to spend the rest of your life with?

If so, then gay people do not have the same rights to marriage that you have.
 
Navy Pride said:



As far as a gay person unless they flaunt their sexuality you would not even know they were gay.......
Click to expand...

...and we all know that you prefer it that way Navy. You are ok with gay people...as long as they act straight in public.
 
disneydude said:
Sure it was. Prior to changing the definition, marriage was defined as marriage between a man and a woman of the same race. That definition was changed.

As you point out, the restrictions changed who could enter into it with whom.
How is gay marriage any different than that?
Click to expand...

What you continue to ignore is its still a man and a woman getting married regardless of their color......
 
disneydude said:
Really Navy? When you chose to get married, were you able to marry the person that you were in love with? Were you able to marry a person that you were sexually attracted to? Were you able to marry the person who above all others you CHOSE to spend the rest of your life with?

If so, then gay people do not have the same rights to marriage that you have.
Click to expand...

Sure I was as long as they are the same sex..........I did not ask to change anything like gays are trying to do.......
 
disneydude said:
...and we all know that you prefer it that way Navy. You are ok with gay people...as long as they act straight in public.
Click to expand...

Unlike you I don't like to see anyoneflaunt their sexuality be they straight or gay...........I have said it over and over again that what to people do in the privacy of their bedroom is their businne......Unlike you I don't wnat to know about it.........I am not going to tell you that again.......
 
Navy Pride said:
Sure I was as long as they are the same sex..........I did not ask to change anything like gays are trying to do.......
Click to expand...

What change? Gays have been getting married ever since their were gays.
 
Navy Pride said:
Sure I was as long as they are the same sex..........I did not ask to change anything like gays are trying to do.......
Click to expand...

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.
 
disneydude said:
Sure it was. Prior to changing the definition, marriage was defined as marriage between a man and a woman of the same race. That definition was changed.
Click to expand...

No, it wasn't. It was defined as being between a man and woman, with restrictions as to who could enter into it with whom. It's not the same thing.

Making things up is bad faith. You hurt yourself by doing so.


As you point out, the restrictions changed who could enter into it with whom.
How is gay marriage any different than that?
Click to expand...

Because you're make a fundamental redefinition of the institution, not making the existing one more inclusive, or removing arbitrary, irrelevant barriers from it.

Besides, is it "gay" marriage? Are you saying that two non-gay men (or women) could not enter into a same-sex marriage?
 
Harshaw said:
No, it wasn't. It was defined as being between a man and woman, with restrictions as to who could enter into it with whom. It's not the same thing.

Making things up is bad faith. You hurt yourself by doing so.




Because you're make a fundamental redefinition of the institution, not making the existing one more inclusive, or removing arbitrary, irrelevant barriers from it.

Besides, is it "gay" marriage? Are you saying that two non-gay men (or women) could not enter into a same-sex marriage?
Click to expand...
Absolutely it was. Heed your own advice...Making things up is bad faith. You hurt yourself by doing so.

If marriage were simply defined as a union between a man and a woman, then ANY man could marry ANY woman. That wasn't true until the inter-racial discrimination ended and CHANGED that definition of marriage.

Allowing gays to marry the person they love is no more a "fundamental redefinition" than changing it to allow inter-racial marriage.
They both made the exisiting definition more inclusive and remove arbitrary and irrelevant barriers from it.

As to your final point. Certainly, two non-gay men (or women) could enter into marriage, however, I can't see that they would want to. But if they did, what reason does the government have to be involved?
 
disneydude said:
Absolutely it was. Heed your own advice...Making things up is bad faith. You hurt yourself by doing so.

If marriage were simply defined as a union between a man and a woman, then ANY man could marry ANY woman. That wasn't true until the inter-racial discrimination ended and CHANGED that definition of marriage.
Click to expand...

This is stupid. Show the language. Show that. Show that an interracial marriage was not considered a marriage at all.


Allowing gays to marry the person they love is no more a "fundamental redefinition" than changing it to allow inter-racial marriage.
They both made the exisiting definition more inclusive and remove arbitrary and irrelevant barriers from it.
Click to expand...

Not the same thing. Obviously, your passion on the issue makes it impossible for you see that, but it's not the same thing.


As to your final point. Certainly, two non-gay men (or women) could enter into marriage, however, I can't see that they would want to. But if they did, what reason does the government have to be involved?
Click to expand...

Never said it did. But considering your inability to argue honestly, I'm not surprised you try to make it seem as though I did. You have great difficulty entertaining ideas which are in any way contrary to your worldview, so you assume that anyone who raises an academic point against you must be against you in principle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom