• 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

CriticalThought said:
It was the law in California and Maine that same sex marriage was allowed. How did those who oppose same sex marriage live with the law?
Click to expand...

Opponenets of ssm didn't learn to live with the law, they changed it. After the Maine Legislature passed ssm, opponents used the public veto process within Maine law requiring a statewide referendum. By 53%, Maine shot down ssm, leaving 5 states that issue licenses. California another state that has a referendum process and defeated ssm. We don't live with it, CT, what gave you that idea? Hasn't the argument from opponents of ssm consistently argued that We the People should decide this issue? And so, the issue is taken right to the voter where permittable.

Now, how do we live with these other 5 states allowing ssm? We prevent our own states first from recognizing those marriages and then, hopefully begin an initiative for a federal amendent.

Don't tell people to live with the law while you are doing everything in your power to change the law. It's patronizing to say the least. You are insinuating that same sex marriage supporters do not live with the law and that opponents do, when the reality is nobody is really happy with the situation we have at present.
Click to expand...

Yes, I can see your argument there, I think that does apply. I'll stand corrected. I very much do think you have every right to not live with the decision and take appropriate measures. However, once on the books, we'll both have to obey the laws...albeit whining about it.

How dare you insinuate that same sex marriage supporters must limit themselves to one front while opponents are free to fight on the state and federal level.
Click to expand...

Yes you are correct, I again, stand corrected. I was having a tit for tat with another member who was telling me I'd have to live with the law and, by mistake, got caught up in that. You are correct here, CT, I appreciate you setting me straight. When looking at this argument of yours, it makes sense. I would never allow ssm to be determined by some Robe in a court or exec in an office, I wouldn't sit still one second. And I know see...to be perfectly fair...I shouldn't expect you to sit idle either.

Are you as well supportive of a US Constitutional amendment initiaitve...just to see where the entire nation is on this issue....and however it goes, we'd both live with that?
 
Last edited:
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
You don't want to go there, it's a hypocritical stance. CriticalThought's reply was well said.
Click to expand...

The Doma should be their target, that isn't hypocrisy. Certainly, I can see CT's reply and see where you wouldn't sit idle and have every right I do to speak up. But, should the DOMA be your first target?
 
Charles Martel said:
Yes you are correct, I again, stand corrected. I was having a tit for tat with another member who was telling me I'd have to live with the law and, by mistake, got caught up in that. You are correct here, CT, I appreciate you setting me straight. When looking at this argument of yours, it makes sense. I would never allow ssm to be determined by some Robe in a court or exec in an office, I wouldn't sit still one second. And I know see...to be perfectly fair...I shouldn't expect you to sit idle either.
Click to expand...

Now you are starting to get it.

Are you as well supportive of a US Constitutional amendment initiaitve...just to see where the entire nation is on this issue....and however it goes, we'd both live with that?
Click to expand...

No. Just because the federal government passes an amendment to the Constitution does not make it right. They passed Prohibition, and that didn't work. If they passed a federal amendment banning same sex marriage, then I would work my entire life to see it repealed. Don't think the issue will just go away. It doesn't matter what you do, people on both sides are going to fight this for as long as they live. If the Supreme Court ruled that same sex marriage must be legal in every state, you would fight to have a federal amendment banning same sex marriage. If you succeeded, then we would fight to repeal that federal amendment. That is how a Constitutional Republic works. Just because people make something into law doesn't mean that people have to settle for it. This, like many issues, is one that is here to stay.

For the time being, your side is winning. You have 31-0 as far as states are concerned, and Indiana may make it 32-0 if they pass their Constitutional amendment. The polls indicate that only a third of the country supports same sex marriage, whereas 58% support civil unions. In essence, if your side ever smarted up and pushed through federal civil unions that granted all the same rights as marriage, then the same sex marriage issue would probably be settled for a generation or two simply because it is very difficult to argue that having all the legal rights does not satisfy the Constitutional arguments. At that point you would only be talking about the word, "marriage" and it would be quite an uphill battle if not impossible for same sex marriage proponents to overcome it. But because your side actually wants to deny gays any and all rights, same sex marriage has a shot. A small shot, but a real one that may come in a Supreme Court ruling next year that could be just as tumultuous as Roe v. Wade.
 
CriticalThought said:
If they passed a federal amendment banning same sex marriage, then I would work my entire life to see it repealed.
Click to expand...

You mean offer a further amendment?

This, like many issues, is one that is here to stay.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

For the time being, your side is winning.
Click to expand...

Thank God.

In essence, if your side ever smarted up and pushed through federal civil unions that granted all the same rights as marriage, then the same sex marriage issue would probably be settled for a generation or two simply because it is very difficult to argue that having all the legal rights does not satisfy the Constitutional arguments.
Click to expand...

Why push civil unions, we don't necessarily agree with those either, and, it wouldn't "probably" settle the issue, as you say, many would fight for "equal status" and the Doma signed under Clinton has already lasted a generation.

But because your side actually wants to deny gays any and all rights
Click to expand...

Now...we'll have this debate wihtout the hysterics and drama...correct? I mean...we can have this debate...same sex marriage...without you crowing on about denying "any and all rights". I stood corrected where I needed to, you need to edit this as well.;)
 
jallman said:
However, the court is fully within its powers to make a ruling.
Click to expand...

And we're fully within ours to redefine. As long as We the People are given final word, the court can rule all it wants. In the end, some impossible to misinterpret law must be written. CT corrects you as well here, the court can rule.....but We the People aren't just going to sit on that ruling, we will fight to change the law.
 
Charles Martel said:
:shock:And you're arguing earlier that marriage is like any other contract? What in the world!! You're trying to tell me.....or it turns out...sell me....that any other contract...given the natural tendencies for humans to enter contracts....and leading to "pursuit of one's happiness" is the equal to ANY other contract that requires two people to be responsible or some such nonsense. You've now jumped into what the "point" of the marriage contract is?:rofl
Click to expand...

You are being obtuse and not even making any sense. I suggest you move on from this before you look even more foolish than you already do.

The State even making "concessions for us to choose one person irreplaceable to us"............yeah....just like every other contract mentioned in example in this thread, huh?
Click to expand...

Just like any other contract, just for different purposes.

Point of a marriage contract, Sir? Based on a "natural tendency of humans".....Sir? Directly tied to our very happiness Sir.....is like any other contract.

I debated in college, formal rules, tight lipped sort of stuff, actually chasing a chick and that's why I got into it. This right here....this mistake you just made defining marriage and thus making it unique and quite unlike any other contract...is called a colossal error on your part. You've just contradicted yourself Jallman.....big time. There isn't a contract on this earth in the manner in which YOU just described while you're pretending otherwise just days ago. For crying out loud, may I ask for a consistent argument to take on, this all over Left field back and forth contradictions are difficult.



Why not, you do it and use the state to implement.



We the People though....are that State....you seem to keep misunderstanding that.
Click to expand...

I don't give a flying **** what you did in college, sir. You obviously took nothing of value from the experience because you don't even know what the definition of a contradiction is. There was nothing contradictory in my stance; all you are doing is comparing the aspect of the "how" against the aspect of the "why" and creating some asinine argument built on shifting sand.

Is this where you start the "neener neener neener" routine or do you just cry that someone is being "insulting" and making irrelevant conjectures about emotional states?
 
Charles Martel said:
You mean offer a further amendment?
Click to expand...

Yes. It would probably take the better part of a century, but it isn't impossible.

Why push civil unions, we don't necessarily agree with those either, and, it wouldn't "probably" settle the issue, as you say, many would fight for "equal status" and the Doma signed under Clinton has already lasted a generation.
Click to expand...

You aren't thinking sociologically. If people have a generation or two to get used to civil unions, then it could cut same sex marriage support in half. A lot of gay people would just be happy to settle for civil unions and rights advocates are more concerned with the rights than with the word "marriage". There would always be a small, vocal group aiming for same sex marriage, but at that point, a federal amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman would most likely be pushed through. In essence, it is because of the bigotry of your side that seeks to discriminate against gays that same sex marriage has any shot with such little popular support. If you demanded federal civil unions as a compromise, then it would be the virtual end of the debate in this century.

As it is right now, if you managed to trump the Supreme Court and even push through a federal amendment, you would ensure the debate became as livid as abortion for decades to come.

Now...we'll have this debate wihtout the hysterics and drama...correct? I mean...we can have this debate...same sex marriage...without you crowing on about denying "any and all rights". I stood corrected where I needed to, you need to edit this as well.;)
Click to expand...

Politics is about sensationalism. Your side has argued that gays want same sex marriage simply so that they can lower the age of consent and molest children. Do you really think your side is going to stop making such claims? If not, then why would you expect the other side to stop making claims that you dislike?
 
Last edited:
Gay Marriage is kinda like Abortion.... highly emotionally charged, spends much of the time in the courts with both sides fearing and desiring a "roe Vs. Wade" moment that goes their way...

And when it boils down... those of you FOR Gay Marriage... if your state bars it, hey it's the law of the land man, just accept it.
 
winston53660 said:
No.........
Click to expand...

Yes.....

I know, it's a civil rights thing, society must accept changing Marriage from one man, one woman to whatever combination people want. Polygamist are chomping at the bit for you guys to win a court case.
 
MrVicchio said:
Yes.....

I know, it's a civil rights thing, society must accept changing Marriage from one man, one woman to whatever combination people want. Polygamist are chomping at the bit for you guys to win a court case.
Click to expand...

What would their Constitutional argument be? Religious discrimination I doubt would fly since as of now no religion can have state sanctioned polygamy, not muslim, momon, hindu, satanist, wiccan, etc.
 
What would their Constitutional argument be? Religious discrimination I doubt would fly since as of now no religion can have state sanctioned polygamy, not muslim, momon, hindu, satanist, wiccan, etc.
Click to expand...

Why not? What makes passing judgement on polyamory any more ok than on homosexuality?

This is one of the reasons I am not too keen on making gay marriage "legal."

Allowing the government to regulate gay marriage in addition to straight marriage isn't progress any more than allowing white women to own black people as slaves in addition to allowing white men to own black people as slaves would have been a couple centuries ago.

Progress would be people telling their government not to regulate things that are none of its damn business.
 
Panache said:
Why not? What makes passing judgement on polyamory any more ok than on homosexuality?

This is one of the reasons I am not too keen on making gay marriage "legal."

Allowing the government to regulate gay marriage in addition to straight marriage isn't progress any more than allowing white women to own black people as slaves in addition to allowing white men to own black people as slaves would have been a couple centuries ago.

Progress would be people telling their government not to regulate things that are none of its damn business.
Click to expand...


So the Constitutional argument is because gays can get married polygamy should be allowed to?
 
So the Constitutional argument is because gays can get married polygamy should be allowed to?
Click to expand...

That doesn't sound like a constitutional argument to me.
 
Panache said:
Why not? What makes passing judgement on polyamory any more ok than on homosexuality?
Click to expand...

No one is passing judgment on polyamory as far as I can tell. I don't give a flying rat's ass who someone falls in love with. However, to take part in the marriage contract without changing the fabric of its purpose, certain requirements need to be met.

The first is that one must be naming another person to be their one irreplacable partner.

The second is that both participants must be of the age of legal majority, in their sound mind, and be consenting to the arrangement.

I wouldn't want to see cousins marrying either, but, in the case of homosexuality, that restriction makes no sense though I find the thought of cousins coupling to be rather revolting.
 
No one is passing judgment on polyamory as far as I can tell. I don't give a flying rat's ass who someone falls in love with. However, to take part in the marriage contract without changing the fabric of its purpose, certain requirements need to be met.
Click to expand...

Maybe the fabric of its purpose needs to change then. Perhaps the fabric of its purpose should be determined by the consenting adults involved, rather than by the government.
 
Panache said:
Maybe the fabric of its purpose needs to change then. Perhaps the fabric of its purpose should be determined by the consenting adults involved, rather than by the government.
Click to expand...

If polygamists want to lobby for the creation of a contract tailored to their unions, then by all means, let them.

But I must point out that polygamy is illegal in every state. Homosexuality is not. That is a key factor in determining the legitimacy of polygamous marriage contracts being recognized by the state.

Further, it wouldn't be a marriage in the sense that we know it because the participants are not naming one person to be their irreplacable partner. They are naming several to stand in for each other. I believe that's already an exisiting contract: corporation.
 
jallman said:
You are being obtuse and not even making any sense. I suggest you move on from this before you look even more foolish than you already do.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I'll dismiss your suggestion....and stay right here. You telling me marriage is like any other contract and then giving a definition clearly proving it's quite unique shatters your intergrity here, we move on, your argument is a lock, stock, and barrell joke.

Just like any other contract
Click to expand...

But just hours ago:

the point of the marriage contract is that, given the natural tendancy of the human being to choose life-long mates and that being directly tied to the pursuit of one's happiness, the state makes concessions for us to choose one person to be irreplacable to us.
Click to expand...

So...other contract's points are....related to natural human tendencies....and pursuit of one's happiness, all other contracts receiving "concessions fo us to choose one irreplaceable person."

That ain't like ANY OTHER CONTRACT. And your argument is a massive contradiction. Not to mention hypocritical.;)

I don't give a flying **** what you did in college, sir.
Click to expand...

She was so awesome...red hair..gymnastic bod....gorgeous. I was struck.

You obviously took nothing of value from the experience because you don't even know what the definition of a contradiction is.
Click to expand...

You argument a clear contradiction.

There was nothing contradictory in my stance
Click to expand...

I even highlighted above a massive bit of hypocrisy, NOT ONE of the definitions you gave for marriage are like ANY OTHER contract. You destroyed your own nonsense.

Is this where you start the "neener neener neener" routine or do you just cry that someone is being "insulting" and making irrelevant conjectures about emotional states?
Click to expand...

No, it's where I teel you you're wrong, point out the blatant hypocrisy, and highlight the massive contradiction on your part, why?
 
Charles Martel said:
Sorry, I'll dismiss your suggestion....and stay right here.
Click to expand...

Then you may continue looking foolish and playing the part of an obtuse troll.

I don't really care one way or another. There is plenty of entertaining and stimulating conversation to be had around here without indulging your stupidity any longer.

You are a troll and nothing more. You present no coherent or rational debate and so to continue on with you would be to waste bandwidth and server resources.
 
Last edited:
jallman said:
You present no coherent or rational debate and so to continue on with you would be to waste bandwidth and server resources.
Click to expand...

Your personal insults are of no relevance here...and you cannot name me another contract anything like what you've described concerning marriage and the point of it all. You are correct, there is no need to continue on, you've already contradicted your own argument. Amazing....almost like an argument suicide or something.
 
Last edited:
Gay+Gay: Those who would deny same-sex marriage are hateful.

Man+Woman: No, we don't hate anybody, we love and care about everyone, especially the weakest and most vulnerable among us, that is, children.

Gay+Gay: Those who would deny same-sex marriage are advocating a tyranny of the majority.

Man+Woman: No, we are looking out for the powerless, that is children.

Gays: That those who would deny same-sex marriage are violating the separation of church and state.

Man+Woman: No, the belief that a child deserves to start life with a mother and father is not a religious belief, it is a belief that arises from rational intuition, otherwise known as common sense. Multitudes of secular people hold it and have overwhelming so through history over a broad swatch of cultures.

Gay+Gay: That those who would deny same-sex marriage are violating the human rights of a whole class of individuals, that is homosexuals.

Man+Woman: What gays are demanding would violate the human rights of a whole class of individuals, that is children.

Gay+Gay: That those who would deny same-sex marriage are primarily concerned that their marriages will be at risk.

Man+Woman: No, we are primarily concerned that children will be disadvantaged. With legalized same-sex marriage, no adoption agency will be allowed to discriminate in favor of heterosexual parents, meaning many more children will be consigned to that deprivation than are currently.

Gay+Gay: That those who would deny same-sex marriage don't care about the feelings of homosexuals.

Answer: We care a great deal about their feelings. But we care more about the needs of children than the feelings of adults.

Gay+Gay: That those who would deny same-sex marriage can't stand to see gays living in joy and life-long commitment with their partners.

Man+Woman: We are happy to see gays live in joy and life-long commitment to whomever they please. Just don't ask the state to call it marriage, because doing so would greatly increase the numbers of children whose basic human right to a mother and a father will be denied.
 
Last edited:
70s_guy said:
Gay+Gay: Those who would deny same-sex marriage are hateful.

Man+Woman: No, we don't hate anybody, we love and care about everyone, especially the weakest and most vulnerable among us, that is, children.

Gay+Gay: Those who would deny same-sex marriage are advocating a tyranny of the majority.

Man+Woman: No, we are looking out for the powerless, that is children.

Gays: That those who would deny same-sex marriage are violating the separation of church and state.

Man+Woman: No, the belief that a child deserves to start life with a mother and father is not a religious belief, it is a belief that arises from rational intuition, otherwise known as common sense. Multitudes of secular people hold it and have overwhelming so through history over a broad swatch of cultures.

Gay+Gay: That those who would deny same-sex marriage are violating the human rights of a whole class of individuals, that is homosexuals.

Man+Woman: What gays are demanding would violate the human rights of a whole class of individuals, that is children.

Gay+Gay: That those who would deny same-sex marriage are primarily concerned that their marriages will be at risk.

Man+Woman: No, we are primarily concerned that children will be disadvantaged. With legalized same-sex marriage, no adoption agency will be allowed to discriminate in favor of heterosexual parents, meaning many more children will be consigned to that deprivation than are currently.

Gay+Gay: That those who would deny same-sex marriage don't care about the feelings of homosexuals.

Answer: We care a great deal about their feelings. But we care more about the needs of children than the feelings of adults.

Gay+Gay: That those who would deny same-sex marriage can't stand to see gays living in joy and life-long commitment with their partners.

Man+Woman: We are happy to see gays live in joy and life-long commitment to whomever they please. Just don't ask the state to call it marriage, because doing so would greatly increase the numbers of children whose basic human right to a mother and a father will be denied.
Click to expand...

Other than leaving out 3 other arguments I can think of that have been discussed here at nausieum, well done! You've certainly captured the complete picture :roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom