• 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

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...

Unfortunately for you, this is not based in reality. Children do just as well with gay couples as they do with straight. Therefore, what you wrote above is irrelevant.
 
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...

Gay+Gay: You guys get to screw over everyone else, we should get to too!

Man+Woman: But... think of the children!

:lol:
 
texmaster said:
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:
Click to expand...

Except for the fact that 8 to 10 million children are being raised by a gay parent or same sex couple in this country and both the American Pediatric Association and American Medical Association have indicated that those children could benefit immensely if same sex marriage were legal.

In fact, if all the traditional marriage side's argument really amounts to is what is best for the children, then the traditional marriage side is arguably doing considerably more harm to children.
 
8 to 10 million children...that would "benefit" from same sex marriage you say?

Meaning, they aren't in the best of situations now? I mean if preventing ssm is doing "considerable harm", that means these children are at risk of harm now?
 
This is good news, I think.
Its good that Congress/lawmakers are better representing the majority of people.
Its good that ,finally, homosexuals have equal rights.
 
earthworm said:
This is good news, I think.
Its good that Congress/lawmakers are better representing the majority of people.
Its good that ,finally, homosexuals have equal rights.
Click to expand...

Did you read the article?

TRENTON, N.J. -- New Jersey's state Senate has defeated a bill to legalize gay marriage, the latest in a string of setbacks for advocates.

The defeat, by a vote of 20-14, likely ends any chance that the state Legislature approves gay marriage soon. Five senators did not vote; there is one Senate vacancy.
Click to expand...

Along with the Jerseyians electing a Republican into the Governor's Chair, New York's lil sister may finally be waking up...is my take on it.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
... Therefore, what you wrote above is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

...the opinion of a gay advocates, a small minority of our population

Fortunately we heterosexuals and Christians have vastly more numbers. Even those easily swayed if given the above arguments would acknowledge its simple common sense wisdom without having to defer to some study by politically correct twistinfo-perts. That is why here in California it was so easy to suddenly change the minds of the easily swayed right before the election while your friends were confidently believing manipulated garbage data from your own media.
 
Fortunately we heterosexuals and Christians have vastly more numbers.
Click to expand...

So did Xerxes I.
 
70s_guy said:
...the opinion of a gay advocates, a small minority of our population

Fortunately we heterosexuals and Christians have vastly more numbers. Even those easily swayed if given the above arguments would acknowledge its simple common sense wisdom without having to defer to some study by politically correct twistinfo-perts. That is why here in California it was so easy to suddenly change the minds of the easily swayed right before the election while your friends were confidently believing manipulated garbage data from your own media.
Click to expand...

It's quite inspirational if you think about it. Gays and lesbians make up at most 5% of the population, and yet every recent vote on same sex marriage, including California, has been nearly 50/50. There would be no debate on the issue without heterosexual Christians in this country. Most of the people who support same sex marriage are heterosexual Christians. And for that matter, the first countries to legalize same sex marriage were Christian nations. It is and always has been Christians who have pushed for same sex marriage. Christians believe in tolerance and equality.

Maybe you fill privileged by fear mongering the undecideds into voting against same sex marriage by making claims that it will be taught in schools, but that is propaganda, not common sense. Don't kid yourself about the kind of tactics your side has had to stoop to in order to win in states like California. It has all been coming out in the Prop 8 trial, which was exactly why your side was terrified of the trial being televised.
 
Last edited:
Good to know it's not the religiously inclined that are opposed to ssm. Seems other arguments then are made to oppose then? I mean, you seem to know alot about the people who support it, most of them apparently christian heterosexuals. The overwhelming opposition...and it's not 50/50, it's normally about 55/45, 57/43 in my state, this thread's title vote 20-14....what are the reasons so many oppose....if not religion?
 
Last edited:
Early in american history, you couldn't marry because you're black and she's white

Now it's you can't marry because you are homosexual

What's next? Since when does the government have the right to determine whether my romantic relationship is valid or not? Catholics have the right to give alcohol to minors every sunday on the premise that it's someone's blood

You have your beliefs and I have mine, and If I can live with your spritual canabalism, then certainly you can live with homosexuals marrying one another.
 
Charles Martel said:
Good to know it's not the religiously inclined that are opposed to ssm. Seems other arguments then are made to oppose then? I mean, you seem to know alot about the people who support it, most of them apparently christian heterosexuals. The overwhelming opposition...and it's not 50/50, it's normally about 55/45, 57/43 in my state, this thread's title vote 20-14....what are the reasons so many oppose....if not religion?
Click to expand...

It is the traditionally inclined who are against same sex marriage. Hence the argument, "we support the traditional definition of marriage". In other words, it is those who wish to protect the status quo and who are afraid of change. They will use religion as a tool to push their agenda, arguing that gays are perverts, abominations, etc. but religion in itself is simply a tool. Christians can choose to interpret their religion anyway they wish, and an increasing number of Christians choose to interpret their religion as favorable to same sex marriage. That makes sense, since if you get to the quick of it, Paul's primary argument against homosexual behavior was that it was a form of adultery. Also, given the extraordinarily shrinking margins over just the last 10 years, it is pretty safe to assume that even a 57/43 vote is monumental progress and who knows where it will be in another 10 years.
 
CriticalThought said:
It is the traditionally inclined who are against same sex marriage. Hence the argument, "we support the traditional definition of marriage". In other words, it is those who wish to protect the status quo and who are afraid of change. They will use religion as a tool to push their agenda, arguing that gays are perverts, abominations, etc. but religion in itself is simply a tool. Christians can choose to interpret their religion anyway they wish, and an increasing number of Christians choose to interpret their religion as favorable to same sex marriage. That makes sense, since if you get to the quick of it, Paul's primary argument against homosexual behavior was that it was a form of adultery. Also, given the extraordinarily shrinking margins over just the last 10 years, it is pretty safe to assume that even a 57/43 vote is monumental progress and who knows where it will be in another 10 years.
Click to expand...

The traditionally inclined are heterosexual christians....CT. Sorry. And the status quo we don't want changed is We the People's right to define our own institutions. But, we seem to agree it's these We the People that need to define it, so, where we are different in position on this matter, we agree on process.:)
 
phildozer9121 said:
What's next? Since when does the government have the right to determine whether my romantic relationship is valid or not? Catholics have the right to give alcohol to minors every sunday on the premise that it's someone's blood
Click to expand...

CT....Panache....wonderin why yer getting yer royal arses defeated, why your record stands as 0-31?

Because...there are those of you making analogies between same sex marriage and Catholics taking the host and wine at communion.

I'd closet these voices right away, yer 55/45 split will be an easy 70/30 after ridiculous theories are offered. Please Phil.:roll:
 
Charles Martel said:
The traditionally inclined are heterosexual christians....CT. Sorry. And the status quo we don't want changed is We the People's right to define our own institutions. But, we seem to agree it's these We the People that need to define it, so, where we are different in position on this matter, we agree on process.:)
Click to expand...

Sorry to get a bit off topic here but do you agree with the tax hike on the rich the people in Oregon voted for?
 
jallman said:
Point proven.
Click to expand...

I thought the point was:

that every contract as they are all the same, 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.
 
Charles Martel said:
I thought the point was:

that every contract as they are all the same, 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...

See, this is where you prove yourself to have no critical thinking skills and to lack anything resembling comprehension.

Every contract has characteristics that are alike. The purpose of various contracts are unique to those contracts. I don't understand what's so ****ing hard about comprehending that and why you have this smug sense of satisfaction over the fact that you fail to do so. :shrug:
 
Charles Martel said:
CT....Panache....wonderin why yer getting yer royal arses defeated, why your record stands as 0-31?

Because...there are those of you making analogies between same sex marriage and Catholics taking the host and wine at communion.

I'd closet these voices right away, yer 55/45 split will be an easy 70/30 after ridiculous theories are offered. Please Phil.:roll:
Click to expand...

You're either missing the point, or just deflecting.
People have rights. I'm a catholic, it's my right to believe what I want, to follow my practice, no matter how strange or weird some people may think it is, so long as it doesn't violate US laws. There is no where in the constitution, nor will there ever be any place in the constitution that states that one man cannot love another man in more than a platonic way. You don't have to believe that homosexuality is right, like jews dont have to believe that your eating the body and blood of jesus is right, but it still must be allowed, because to do otherwise is to discriminate. Plain and simple.
 
winston53660 said:
So it is not "We the People" in all situations huh?
Click to expand...

Of course not. He's all over the place with his "philosophy". Mainly that's because he doesn't have the first clue how a representative republic operates. :shrug:
 
jallman said:
Of course not. He's all over the place with his "philosophy". Mainly that's because he doesn't have the first clue how a representative republic operates. :shrug:
Click to expand...

I think he is just a bitter selfish bastard with a capital L on his forehead.
 
winston53660 said:
I think he is just a bitter selfish bastard with a capital L on his forehead.
Click to expand...

Well that, too. It's of note that he also names himself after a historical figure who has been elevated to champion of a couple of white supremacist groups both here and in Martel's native France. So...you know, you do the math.
 
jallman said:
Well that, too. It's of note that he also names himself after a historical figure who has been elevated to champion of a couple of white supremacist groups both here and in Martel's native France. So...you know, you do the math.
Click to expand...

Can I come to your wedding in a few years? I promise you that the overwhelming majority of Californians will come to their senses in a few years. CAN I? CAN I? Can I be the flower girl? We can do it like a theme wedding. All males wear dresses and females wear suits and tuxes. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom