• 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

Morality Games said:
A note:

Appeals to nature are fallacies because nature theoretically encompasses the totality of human existence. Rape and murder are natural behaviors, for instance. We can't legitimize them simply by recognizing this naturalness.

Appeal to tradition (aka, tendencies) are fallacies because traditions may be based on mistaken beliefs.

Something may be morally right, and also natural and a traditional, but its naturalness and tradition are incidental qualities so far as the ethics of the matter is concerned.
Click to expand...

So.....MG...yer saying...that Marriage isn't, 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 making concessions for us to choose one person to be irreplacable to us?
 
jallman said:
I would be willing to amend my statement on those grounds. The end result is still the same...human beings have a natural tendancy to partner with an expectation and desire for permanence.
Click to expand...

I agree. This is a tendency for people to search for, and sometimes they go through many relationships, some that may SEEM permanent until they find it.
 
Morality Games said:
A note:

Appeals to nature are fallacies because nature theoretically encompasses the totality of human existence. Rape and murder are natural behaviors, for instance. We can't legitimize them simply by recognizing this naturalness.

Appeal to tradition (aka, tendencies) are fallacies because traditions may be based on mistaken beliefs.

Something may be morally right, and also natural and a traditional, but its naturalness and tradition are incidental qualities so far as the ethics of the matter is concerned.
Click to expand...

Thank you. And this leads to why Charles is, yet again, wrong in his assertions that an appeal to nature has been made.

No one is arguing the legitimacy of marriage itself so no appeal to nature in describing the point of the marriage contract has been made.

It's simply a statement of it being what it is, currently. Now if someone wants to argue whether marriage is legitimate or not, that's for another thread.

Never once have I made an appeal to nature to argue the legitimacy of the inclusion of homosexuals in marriage.
 
Here's a question. If it is NOT a tendency for people to aim towards happiness, and to try to find happiness in relationships, why do people break up/get divorced? If happiness is not the goal, if they are not happy in the relationship, why not just remain for simplicity's sake?
 
Here's a question. If it is NOT a tendency for people to aim towards happiness, and to try to find happiness in relationships, why do people break up/get divorced? If happiness is not the goal, if they are not happy in the relationship, why not just remain for simplicity's sake?
Click to expand...

Did anyone actually make such an assertion? I think people have a tendency to want to be happy. Jallman thinks that people have a tendency to choose to be happy. Charles Martel thinks that... well, maybe think is a bit of a strong word in that case...;)
 
Panache said:
Did anyone actually make such an assertion? I think people have a tendency to want to be happy. Jallman thinks that people have a tendency to choose to be happy. Charles Martel thinks that... well, maybe think is a bit of a strong word in that case...;)
Click to expand...

I can agree that when you distill all these assertions down to their baseline, it is ultimately that people choose what is going to make them happy.

It's also evident that evidence is overwhelming that being partnered lifelong is considered to be what makes us happy when it comes to relationships.
 
jallman said:
I can agree that when you distill all these assertions down to their baseline, it is ultimately that people choose what is going to make them happy.

It's also evident that evidence is overwhelming that being partnered lifelong is considered to be what makes us happy when it comes to relationships.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with any of that. I just don't think its any of the government's damn business.
 
Panache said:
I don't disagree with any of that. I just don't think its any of the government's damn business.
Click to expand...

OK. But I think it's dumb to even entertain the idea of the marriage contract, as a state function, being abolished. It's simply not going to happen nor should it. It streamlines and simplifies too much of our social order to be done away with.
 
jallman said:
I can agree that when you distill all these assertions down to their baseline, it is ultimately that people choose what is going to make them happy.
Click to expand...

And the government makes "concessions" given these choices people make that result in happiness...

..just like all other contracts
 
Charles Martel said:
And the government makes "concessions" given these choices people make that result in happiness...

..just like all other contracts
Click to expand...

I see that in your absence you made no attempt to brush up on that comprehension problem you have.
 
OK. But I think it's dumb to even entertain the idea of the marriage contract, as a state function, being abolished. It's simply not going to happen nor should it. It streamlines and simplifies too much of our social order to be done away with.
Click to expand...

I never claimed that it was practical.

Suppose, hypothetically, that discrimination was so integrated and institutionalized that treating gays like human beings would be a terribly impractical and unrealistic endeavor. Would that stop you from advocating that they should be?

I don't have any illusions that getting rid of marriage licenses in one fell swoop is going to happen anytime soon. That being the ultimate goal however, I would like to see things move in that direction rather than away from it.

I would be fine with tackling each of those 1138 items one at a time, and slowly weaning people off of marriage licenses until they became redundant.

It is a problem when a family can contest the validity of someone's inheritance because they weren't married to the deceased. When gay marriage becomes legal, that problem will still exist, it just won't be a problem for gay partners who chose to get a marriage license.

If we actually solved the problem by making it so that the wishes of the deceased were honoured, it would solve the problem for everyone. If married people want to leave everything to their spouse, they can write them into their will, just like everyone else has to.

Same concept applies to every other item on the list.
 
Panache said:
I never claimed that it was practical.

Suppose, hypothetically, that discrimination was so integrated and institutionalized that treating gays like human beings would be a terribly impractical and unrealistic endeavor. Would that stop you from advocating that they should be?
Click to expand...

I can't imagine any context within the framework of our society in which such a thing would be a possibility. But, you are correct if you are expectiing my answer to be no.

However, make no mistake about my position: I don't think marriage should be abolished. I think marriage is a worthy institution for a number of reasons.

I don't have any illusions that getting rid of marriage licenses in one fell swoop is going to happen anytime soon. That being the ultimate goal however, I would like to see things move in that direction rather than away from it.
Click to expand...

Our goals actually intersect, if you think about it. If you eliminate the tradition and religious aspect by moving to civil unions, you may have an easier time later (as in like 100 years or so) of moving them away from the civil aspect, too. :mrgreen:
 
I can't imagine any context within the framework of our society in which such a thing would be a possibility. But, you are correct if you are expectiing my answer to be no.

However, make no mistake about my position: I don't think marriage should be abolished. I think marriage is a worthy institution for a number of reasons.
Click to expand...

Well, you are entitled to your misconceptions.

Our goals actually intersect, if you think about it. If you eliminate the tradition and religious aspect by moving to civil unions, you may have an easier time later (as in like 100 years or so) of moving them away from the civil aspect, too.
Click to expand...

If government started acknowledging civil unions instead of marriages, I would certainly consider that a step in the right direction.
 
jallman said:
I see that in your absence you made no attempt to brush up on that comprehension problem you have.
Click to expand...

Reading comprehension alive and well, your consistency glaringly lacking. You're all over the map, J, let me know when you land on a policy position, I'll be glad to take it on.

Right now, it's impossible to take you seriously. Refusing to take back perhaps the most boneheaded statement ever made on DP is your legacy.

Retract your nonsense and your intergrity might be saved, Im pulling for you.:2wave:
 
Panache said:
Did anyone actually make such an assertion? I think people have a tendency to want to be happy. Jallman thinks that people have a tendency to choose to be happy. Charles Martel thinks that... well, maybe think is a bit of a strong word in that case...;)
Click to expand...

I'm not claiming that anyone mad the assertion. Just throwing the question out there after having read a variety of thoughts on happiness.
 
Charles Martel said:
Reading comprehension alive and well, your consistency glaringly lacking. You're all over the map, J, let me know when you land on a policy position, I'll be glad to take it on.

Right now, it's impossible to take you seriously. Refusing to take back perhaps the most boneheaded statement ever made on DP is your legacy.

Retract your nonsense and your intergrity might be saved, Im pulling for you.:2wave:
Click to expand...

Uh-huh. When you can argue an issue without liberally editing the posts you are "taking on" to mean something more convenient for you to argue, why don't you let me know?

Until then, you've pretty much been trussed up and gutted like the catch of the day. Your arguments smell like the catch of last week though...:lol:
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I'm not claiming that anyone mad the assertion. Just throwing the question out there after having read a variety of thoughts on happiness.
Click to expand...

Happiness can be anything CC. And as it pertains to the question of Gay Marriage, Civil Unions provide everything legally the GLBT Aliance wants, without pissing off the majority by calling it marriage...

I think that's a safe compromise.
 
MrVicchio said:
Happiness can be anything CC. And as it pertains to the question of Gay Marriage, Civil Unions provide everything legally the GLBT Aliance wants, without pissing off the majority by calling it marriage...

I think that's a safe compromise.
Click to expand...
They can always join the military now. :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
MrVicchio said:
Happiness can be anything CC. And as it pertains to the question of Gay Marriage, Civil Unions provide everything legally the GLBT Aliance wants, without pissing off the majority by calling it marriage...

I think that's a safe compromise.
Click to expand...

"Civil Union" won't do because that doesn't throw their sexuality in your face enough.

Just like you can't throw a gay parade without the proverbial guy in the leather bondage suit with a dog collar and leash on his hands and knees going buy.

You have to acknowledge their gaydom, keep your mouth shut, and deal with it, or they aren't happy.
 
Erod said:
"Civil Union" won't do because that doesn't throw their sexuality in your face enough.

Just like you can't throw a gay parade without the proverbial guy in the leather bondage suit with a dog collar and leash on his hands and knees going buy.

You have to acknowledge their gaydom, keep your mouth shut, and deal with it, or they aren't happy.
Click to expand...

If you believe anything that you just typed in that post, you've got a serious problem with gay people. You should stop looking at and worrying about them and instead take a long look at yourself.
 
Winnb said:
If you believe anything that you just typed in that post, you've got a serious problem with gay people. You should stop looking at and worrying about them and instead take a long look at yourself.
Click to expand...
I don't see where he's denying his problem with gay people.
 
American said:
I don't see where he's denying his problem with gay people.
Click to expand...

I know. That's my point. It's HIS problem. He needs to own it. Blaming gays isn't going to solve it.
 
Winnb said:
I know. That's my point. It's HIS problem. He needs to own it. Blaming gays isn't going to solve it.
Click to expand...
Maybe he already owns it and is just expressing how he feels.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom