• 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:
To compare the hardships that blacks had to go through to gays is a cop out and insult to every black person who has lived in this country and you know it........
Click to expand...

The plights are different, but the fight for rights is the same. Inequality and discrimination is inequality and discrimination.

Until all of my brothers and sisters share the same rights and privileges as everyone else, America is not truly a free country.

I try to live my life accordings to the teachings of Christ....and to me his strongest message is this:


"Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me".
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
"Progress"?

Denying civil rights is progress?

Embracing bigotry is progress?

Limiting freedom is progress?

OH! I get it, you use the word "progress" like the self-annointed Progressives do, to mean repression and oppression and control by the elites and interference in private lives.
Click to expand...

When the country is at 17%+ employment and is facing a tidal wave of red ink, which undermines the very future of all individuals. It's hardly becoming to spend so much time and energy on "ending bigotry" and "defending freedom." Especially when they're thrown around like the butt-end of a thousand cocktail parties.

Are marriage licenses "progress?" Or is it progress to hold a deed on a house? Is it "progress" to give people the security of "equality," but not the security of a job? When has freedom become an expletive thrown against heterosexuals, and not a rallying cry for economic prosperity?

The Gay "Marriage," debate is everything that is wrong with the country. The small things are amplified over the big things, the small "oppression" is put above real matters.
 
Navy Pride said:
1. The people are the state........:confused:

2. I do not accept the comparison between gays and blacks in the struggle for rights and think its and insult to do so.............

3. Have you been reading the thead at all?
Click to expand...

It's not a civil right to get married to the consenting adult of your choice?

I can't imagine why not.
 
Areopagitican said:
When the country is at 17%+ employment and is facing a tidal wave of red ink, which undermines the very future of all individuals. It's hardly becoming to spend so much time and energy on "ending bigotry" and "defending freedom." Especially when they're thrown around like the butt-end of a thousand cocktail parties.

Are marriage licenses "progress?" Or is it progress to hold a deed on a house? Is it "progress" to give people the security of "equality," but not the security of a job? When has freedom become an expletive thrown against heterosexuals, and not a rallying cry for economic prosperity?

The Gay "Marriage," debate is everything that is wrong with the country. The small things are amplified over the big things, the small "oppression" is put above real matters.
Click to expand...


Wow...I never want to live in an America where fundamental human right are not considered "real matters". :doh
 
disneydude said:
Wow...I never want to live in an America where fundamental human right are not considered "real matters". :doh
Click to expand...

A "fundamental human right," in my humble opinion, cannot be applied to more than one individual. There is no "human right," to marriage or even companionship.

In any event: is food, clothing and shelter not similarly applicable? You say it's a fundamental human right to be married. But how can one "be" with no job, no house and living on food stamps? Is that really your priority?
 
Areopagitican said:
When the country is at 17%+ employment and is facing a tidal wave of red ink, which undermines the very future of all individuals. It's hardly becoming to spend so much time and energy on "ending bigotry" and "defending freedom." Especially when they're thrown around like the butt-end of a thousand cocktail parties.

Are marriage licenses "progress?" Or is it progress to hold a deed on a house? Is it "progress" to give people the security of "equality," but not the security of a job? When has freedom become an expletive thrown against heterosexuals, and not a rallying cry for economic prosperity?

The Gay "Marriage," debate is everything that is wrong with the country. The small things are amplified over the big things, the small "oppression" is put above real matters.
Click to expand...


Since unemployment is more important than impeding someone's right to get married, why are people wasting time protecting their non-existent right to interfere in someone else's wedding? Why aren't they standing aside so the politicians can get back to doing real work?
 
Areopagitican said:
A "fundamental human right," in my humble opinion, cannot be applied to more than one individual. There is no "human right," to marriage or even companionship.
Click to expand...

There's no right to finding a spouse, but once you manage that, it's not a right to marry?

Areopagitican said:
In any event: is food, clothing and shelter not similarly applicable?
Click to expand...

A right does not cost money.

Don't babble about filing fees and court costs, you're perfectly aware of what I mean.


Areopagitican said:
You say it's a fundamental human right to be married. But how can one "be" with no job, no house and living on food stamps? Is that really your priority?
Click to expand...

Work on your sentence structure. With practice you will start to make sense reliably.

Example: How can one "be"...what?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
There's no right to finding a spouse, but once you manage that, it's not a right to marry?
Click to expand...

You're really willing to split hairs like that? It's a right to have the right to marry, but not actually marriage itself? It's like saying you have the right to vote, but not actually voting itself!

A right does not cost money.

Don't babble about filing fees and court costs, you're perfectly aware of what I mean.
Click to expand...

Property is a right, yes? Life is a right? Everything costs money.


Work on your sentence structure. With practice you will start to make sense reliably.

Example: How can one "be"...what?
Click to expand...

I tried to get my point across uniquely, and I'll try again.

To have a fulfilled life, what comes first? A job, a house and affluence or marriage?
 
Areopagitican said:
A "fundamental human right," in my humble opinion, cannot be applied to more than one individual. There is no "human right," to marriage or even companionship.

In any event: is food, clothing and shelter not similarly applicable? You say it's a fundamental human right to be married. But how can one "be" with no job, no house and living on food stamps? Is that really your priority?
Click to expand...


The SCOTUS has recognized the right to marry as a fundamental human right.
 
Areopagitican said:
You're really willing to split hairs like that? It's a right to have the right to marry, but not actually marriage itself? It's like saying you have the right to vote, but not actually voting itself!
Click to expand...

Here's an idea.

A secular marriage is a contract. Discover the paragraph in the US commercial code that says two men or two women cannot enter into a contract.

Then get back to me on how they don't have the right to get married.

What I said was, to clarify your reading deficiencies, is that no one has a right to a bride, ie, it's not the taxpayer's job to provide you with a love puppet. Ya gotta find your own. No one can sue the state because they weren't issued their girlfriend.

Once you find it, there's no reason you can't marry it, even if your um...."firmware" is similar to your new friend's.




Areopagitican said:
Property is a right, yes?
Click to expand...

No.

Ownership is the right.

Acquiring the property is your problem.

Areopagitican said:
Life is a right?
Click to expand...

No.

Everyone dies.

The "right to life" is the guarantee that you won't be murdered under government sanction and that the government will act to punish your killer if you are murdered.

Areopagitican said:
Everything costs money.
Click to expand...

And no one has a right to claim another's money unless services are rendered.

Areopagitican said:
I tried to get my point across uniquely, and I'll try again.

To have a fulfilled life, what comes first? A job, a house and affluence or marriage?
Click to expand...

No one has a right to a "fulfilled" life.

Many lives end miserably with nothing of note accomplished.

Everything you list is the obligation of the individual to attain, not society to provide.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Here's an idea.
A secular marriage is a contract. Discover the paragraph in the US commercial code that says two men or two women cannot enter into a contract.

Then get back to me on how they don't have the right to get married.
Click to expand...

I'm lost. We were discussing whether or not marriage was a "fundamental human right," and you point to US Commercial Code? I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

What I said was, to clarify your reading deficiencies, is that no one has a right to a bride, ie, it's not the taxpayer's job to provide you with a love puppet. Ya gotta find your own. No one can sue the state because they weren't issued their girlfriend.
Click to expand...

People don't have a right to a bride, I agree. Incidentally, I don't believe they have a right to marry the bride either.

Ownership is the right.
Click to expand...

Which goes to prove how un-right-like "marriage" is! Ownership of "xyz" properly purchased is your right. However you and I both agree that I can't automatically have ownership. Apply that to marriage and you realize it's ridiculous to say your not "entitled" to a house deed but your definitely "entitled" to a marriage contract.

The "right to life" is the guarantee that you won't be murdered under government sanction and that the government will act to punish your killer if you are murdered.
Click to expand...

Try to follow me on this one...

If a government actively undermines your ability to make money and purchase food, purchases that you must make so that you may live, isn't that violating that right? Even if you don't die of starvation, isn't that similar to attempted murder?

Just because our government doesn't bomb where one works, doesn't mean taxes effectively destroys it. In that same thread, I feel it is utterly ridiculous for one to put "fixing" marriage, above "fixing" life.


No one has a right to a "fulfilled" life.
Click to expand...

Unless it requires the word "marriage," at which point you'll risk life, limb and property to provide them with that fulfillment?

Everything you list is the obligation of the individual to attain, not society to provide.
Click to expand...

Some would say the same thing about love.
 
Last edited:
jallman said:
I'm not sure what's so confusing about it considering this is a conversation about marriage rights within the United States. :confused:
Click to expand...

I'm certain you read the phrase "fundamental human right," somewhere?

It's one thing to say it is a right within the United States, but another to say it encompasses more.
 
Areopagitican said:
I'm certain you read the phrase "fundamental human right," somewhere?

It's one thing to say it is a right within the United States, but another to say it encompasses more.
Click to expand...

I think you may be confused as to the context and the the application of "fundamental" in this instance.
 
disneydude said:
No. Just those of us who live in the United States.
Click to expand...

Silly me, here I was thinking government, including our judiciary, governs at the consent of the governed. How on earth did We the People "decide" what our rights were before the Supreme Court was created?

The Bill of Rights Gentlemen...was decided upon by the Supreme Court?

Heavens to Mergatroid, is there a history book in your home, Disney?
 
Charles Martel said:
Silly me, here I was thinking government, including our judiciary, governs at the consent of the governed. How on earth did We the People "decide" what our rights were before the Supreme Court was created?

The Bill of Rights Gentlemen...was decided upon by the Supreme Court?

Heavens to Mergatroid, is there a history book in your home, Disney?
Click to expand...

If you think the "Bill of rights" is the only rights the Constitution consists of...I think it is YOU who needs a history or civics book. :doh
 
Since homosexuals try to ram their lifestyle preferences down the throats of our youth why would they insist on mimmicking any part of our lifestyle?
 
rhinefire said:
Since homosexuals try to ram their lifestyle preferences down the throats of our youth why would they insist on mimmicking any part of our lifestyle?
Click to expand...

What youth are having the lifestyle preferences rammed down his or her throat?

Colorful choice of words, by the way.
 
disneydude said:
If you think the "Bill of rights" is the only rights the Constitution consists of...I think it is YOU who needs a history or civics book. :doh
Click to expand...

You'll note a common denominator under each Amendment that reads: passed by Congress and then gives an exact date. Whether it be the first ten amendments or amendment 27. All are passed by Congress decided upon there, the Supreme Court doesn't decide our rights, we clearly do, please correct your colossal error here

And then...may I suggest you were instead speaking to the responsibility of judicial review...that is the Supreme Court(framed to be the weakest of the three branches of government), reviews laws by the Legislature or Acts by the Executive Branch to determine Constitutionality. However....the Constitution itself and rights endowed are defined and decided by Congress. You have a very wrong interpretation of this nation's government.
 
jallman said:
What youth are having the lifestyle preferences rammed down his or her throat?

Colorful choice of words, by the way.
Click to expand...

The straights try to ram the straight lifestyle down the throats of gay youth.
That is reality in many many many case.
 
Charles Martel said:
You'll note a common denominator under each Amendment that reads: passed by Congress and then gives an exact date. Whether it be the first ten amendments or amendment 27. All are passed by Congress decided upon there, the Supreme Court doesn't decide our rights, we clearly do, please correct your colossal error here

And then...may I suggest you were instead speaking to the responsibility of judicial review...that is the Supreme Court(framed to be the weakest of the three branches of government), reviews laws by the Legislature or Acts by the Executive Branch to determine Constitutionality. However....the Constitution itself and rights endowed are defined and decided by Congress. You have a very wrong interpretation of this nation's government.
Click to expand...
Not sure I follow this. :confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom