• 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

Just because I don't embrace all things homosexual as being sunshine and lollipops does not make my stance stupid or ignorant.

Black and white thinking. It's either fully embrace or outright reject with you, isn't?
 
Black and white thinking. It's either fully embrace or outright reject with you, isn't?

Yes, CT, you got me.

Did you read the exchange between me and CC? I doubt it.

Were you aware that not only do I support Transgender rights, but I have donated money to support Transgendered in need through a charitable organization?

Are you aware that I support Gay Civil Unions, and that I understand WHY there is such a public dislike of changing the definition of Marriage? I'd say that I am the one on this issue that is willing to compromise where as people like yourself demand nothing short of complete and utter acceptance of the demand of Gay Marriage.

So how about you take your little bigoted beliefs about me, hammered into you by the media, that all conservatives are gay haters, and try reading what people state as their stances instead of assigning stances based on what you think you're supposed to do.
 
I was referring to your comment, not your position. From what I could tell, nobody was suggesting you had to "embrace all things homosexual". And furthermore, I did not say that all conservatives are gay haters. Your choice of wording indicates an either/or thinking pattern. That doesn't do you any favors when trying to have a discussion with someone.
 
I was referring to your comment, not your position. From what I could tell, nobody was suggesting you had to "embrace all things homosexual". And furthermore, I did not say that all conservatives are gay haters. Your choice of wording indicates an either/or thinking pattern. That doesn't do you any favors when trying to have a discussion with someone.

Coming from you, that's funny.
 
Just because I don't embrace all things homosexual as being sunshine and lollipops does not make my stance stupid or ignorant.

No one said you had to embrace anything to quit with the ignorant and stupid things you say.
 
No one said you had to embrace anything to quit with the ignorant and stupid things you say.

So anything that you disagree with is stupid or ignorant. Got it.

So what was so stupid and ignorant about my statement? Other then you didn't like what was said?
 
How so? I've stated in the past that I hate many things that have to do with the gay culture.

I could give a flying **** less what you have had to say about anything to be honest.

You attacked my stance as black and white, no back up, no example of how so, just bam.
 
I could give a flying **** less what you have had to say about anything to be honest.

You attacked my stance as black and white, no back up, no example of how so, just bam.

As I said, I was referring to your comment, not your position.
 
So anything that you disagree with is stupid or ignorant. Got it.

No, you don't "get" it and you never have.

So what was so stupid and ignorant about my statement? Other then you didn't like what was said?

My issue with the rampant stupidity in your posts has more to do with your total denial of any kind of factual information in favor of keeping with your refuted mutterings.
 
I could give a flying **** less what you have had to say about anything to be honest.

Then why the **** are you even bothering to have a conversation with anyone on a message board. You'd be better served to go yammer out your ramblings on a blog where no one can challenge your warped perceptions.
 
Then why the **** are you even bothering to have a conversation with anyone on a message board. You'd be better served to go yammer out your ramblings on a blog where no one can challenge your warped perceptions.

I said him, specifically. If he's gonna try to pigeon hole me on one misconception he has, he's obviously not interested in where I actually stand on this issue.

You get that Jall? I know why you are pissy with me, I'm not embracing the Gay Agenda 110%, so you're going after me, that's fine, I get it.
 
No, you don't "get" it and you never have.



My issue with the rampant stupidity in your posts has more to do with your total denial of any kind of factual information in favor of keeping with your refuted mutterings.

Ahh, general blathering about how I'm ignorant and stupid because I don't truck with your "facts".

You're denying that proponents of group marriage are NOT going to use the same legal challenges and arguments that the Gay Marriage folks are using?

And you call me stupid and idiotic?
 
Homosexuals are only trying to justify and their choice to be homosexual because they can't deal with reality.

After all the whole I was born this way is and always has been a lie.

So essentially, by that token, you chose to be straight then, correct? After all, if sexual orientation is a simple choice then there really is nothing wrong with choosing to be a homosexual anymore than there would be for choosing to be a heterosexual.
 
What about the comment lead you to believe that?

"Just because I don't embrace all things homosexual as being sunshine and lollipops does not make my stance stupid or ignorant."

As if people were asking you to be totally embracing of homosexuality.
 
"Just because I don't embrace all things homosexual as being sunshine and lollipops does not make my stance stupid or ignorant."

As if people were asking you to be totally embracing of homosexuality.

Oh, so what should my stance be? And what should it be based on then?

NJ, a liberal state, defeated Gay Marriage. I think that says a lot about the issue personally.
 
Oh, so what should my stance be? And what should it be based on then?

You are free to have whatever stance you want. I only disagreed with the thinking behind your comment. Just because someone disagrees with you on one gay issue doesn't mean they expect you to embrace all of homosexuality. It was a dumb comment on your part, and you are just pissed that I called you out on it so you are trying to get me to take issue with your positoin.

NJ, a liberal state, defeated Gay Marriage. I think that says a lot about the issue personally.

Not really. Let's consider the facts. New Jersey already has civil unions that offer all the same state rights as marriage, save the name. The New Jersey legislator simply put down a bill on gay marriage before midterms elections. It doesn't mean that gay marriage was beaten by a ballot initiative that amended the state Constitution. The issue can be brought up again as many times as it takes until it passes. Gay rights activists are getting pretty good at being patient, and until there is a Supreme Court ruling or Federal Constitutional Amendment that prohibits same sex marriage, we are always going to try for it. It would be dumb of us not to try since there is so much benefit involved in obtaining marriage. Unfortunately, civil unions and domestic partnerships do a lot to inhibit us from getting marriage, because it is seen as a compromise in liberal states like California, Maine, New York, and New Jersey. We haven't lost any rights in any of those states aside from calling our unions, "marriage" instead of "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships". In essence, if you had your way and every Conservative decided tomorrow to support civil unions, then we probably wouldn't see marriage for several generations simply because it would be difficult to argue why we deserved the name "marriage" when we are getting all the rights.
 
I said him, specifically. If he's gonna try to pigeon hole me on one misconception he has, he's obviously not interested in where I actually stand on this issue.

You get that Jall? I know why you are pissy with me, I'm not embracing the Gay Agenda 110%, so you're going after me, that's fine, I get it.

Actually, that has very little to do with it as I don't support the "gay agenda" 110% so again, you utterly fail. Unless your intent was to mouth off more insanely stupid ramblings.
 
Ahh, general blathering about how I'm ignorant and stupid because I don't truck with your "facts".

You're denying that proponents of group marriage are NOT going to use the same legal challenges and arguments that the Gay Marriage folks are using?

And you call me stupid and idiotic?

I'm saying that unless you've developed some super awesome-o mind powers that none of the rest of the human race has evolved to (and we both know where I stand on that assessment by now), you can't make a certain prognostication as to what will happen.

However I can say this with full certainty...group marriage does not fit the ordered contract that marriage is in that a group marriage occludes the whole concept of naming one person to be your irreplacable partner. That would prevent the argument right off the bat.

But let's not let reason and critical thought get in the way of whatever it is you are trying to accomplish here.
 
I'm saying that unless you've developed some super awesome-o mind powers that none of the rest of the human race has evolved to (and we both know where I stand on that assessment by now), you can't make a certain prognostication as to what will happen.

Good point, history never repeats itself, and all those others out there in the real world predicting that the group marriage folks will use the same tactics as the gay marriage folks are just idiots too.

However I can say this with full certainty...group marriage does not fit the ordered contract that marriage is in that a group marriage occludes the whole concept of naming one person to be your irreplacable partner. That would prevent the argument right off the bat.
Whoa re you to judge what is right for others? Just because it doesn't fit your preconceived notion of what marriage is and should be about?

But let's not let reason and critical thought get in the way of whatever it is you are trying to accomplish here.

I'm pointing out that Gay Marriage will lead to Group Marriage.

It's just the next step.
 
I'm pointing out that Gay Marriage will lead to Group Marriage.

It's just the next step.

Ah the slippery slope argument. Well using your slippery slope argument we should ban straight marriages too. Here's how it works.

Allowing straight marriage leads to gay marriage.

Allowing gay marriage leads to group marriages.

Allowing group marriages leads to incestuous marriages.

And after that maybe some guy marrying his pet goldfish or some such nonsense.

So if we made straight marriages illegal, that would stop the gay marriages you're so afraid of, which would in turn stop all of the group marriages that will ruin our nation and bring about Armageddon.
 
I'm pointing out that Gay Marriage will lead to Group Marriage.

Because of course that's what has happened in every other place in the world that has allowed gay marriage. It's inevitable! You can't stop it! One day, you allow people of the same sex to get married and the next thing you know, the entire country is married to each other!

Oh wait, my bad. I remember now. That hasn't happened anyplace and there is no movement whatsoever to make it happen. Silly me.
 
Because of course that's what has happened in every other place in the world that has allowed gay marriage. It's inevitable! You can't stop it! One day, you allow people of the same sex to get married and the next thing you know, the entire country is married to each other!

Oh wait, my bad. I remember now. That hasn't happened anyplace and there is no movement whatsoever to make it happen. Silly me.

The Netherlands and Belgium were the first countries to give full marriage rights to homosexuals. In the United States some politicians propose “civil unions” that give homosexual couples the full benefits and responsibilities of marriage. These civil unions differ from marriage only in name.

Meanwhile in the Netherlands polygamy has been legalised in all but name. Last Friday the first civil union of three partners was registered. Victor de Bruijn (46) from Roosendaal “married” both Bianca (31) and Mirjam (35) in a ceremony before a notary who duly registered their civil union.

“I love both Bianca and Mirjam, so I am marrying them both,” Victor said. He had previously been married to Bianca. Two and a half years ago they met Mirjam Geven through an internet chatbox. Eight weeks later Mirjam deserted her husband and came to live with Victor and Bianca. After Mirjam’s divorce the threesome decided to marry.

Victor: “A marriage between three persons is not possible in the Netherlands, but a civil union is. We went to the notary in our marriage costume and exchanged rings. We consider this to be just an ordinary marriage.”

Asked by journalists to tell the secret of their peculiar relationship, Victor explained that there is no jealousy between them. “But this is because Mirjam and Bianca are bisexual. I think that with two heterosexual women it would be more difficult.” Victor stressed, however, that he is “a one hundred per cent heterosexual” and that a fourth person will not be allowed into the “marriage.” They want to take their marriage obligations seriously: “to be honest and open with each other and not philander.”

Update:
First Trio "Married" in The Netherlands | The Brussels Journal

Oops. Guess you were wrong there.

Oh and look... Polygamist using Gay Marriage to push for their rights...

If one man can marry another, why can't a man have 20 wives?

That's something of the gist of the defence to be used as the case against accused BC polygamists Winston Blackmore and James Oler started to move through BC courts Jan 21.

And, says Blackmore's lawyer, Blair Suffredine, if the argument has to go all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, so be it.

The first appearance in Creston, BC Provincial Court lasted less than five minutes.

It was put over to Feb 18 for disclosure of documents.

After that appearance, it could move directly to BC Supreme Court in nearby Cranbrook.

But, Suffredine cautions, that has to wait for the outcome of the pending trial.

The former BC provincial Liberal MLA says he doesn't want to minimize same-sex marriage through the argument.

"If [gays] can marry, what is the reason that public policy says one person can't marry more than one person?" he asks. "How is that going to outlast a Charter challenge?"

He says people need to grasp that society's standards have changed.

"If a man loves a woman and promises to be faithful to them and take care of them, that's a crime?" Suffredine asks. "A gay man [marrying] a gay man isn't a crime anymore."

BC Attorney General Wally Oppal says some legal experts believe polygamy charges won't withstand a constitutional challenge in Canada over the issue of freedom of religion.

Oppal said at the time of the arrest that he believes polygamy is an offence in law.

And, he added, if someone says that's contrary to their religion, then the issue is now up to the courts.

Blackmore and Oler were arrested at their Bountiful, BC commune Jan 7.

Blackmore faces charges of committing polygamy with 20 women, while Oler is accused of committing polygamy with two women.
Lawyer in Bountiful polygamy case uses gay marriage defence

See all you people yelling I'm full of it... you're blind to reality.

Oh, and for the record, he beat the rap. No charges filed and is now suing the state.
 
Last edited:
First Trio "Married" in The Netherlands | The Brussels Journal

Oops. Guess you were wrong there.

Oh and look... Polygamist using Gay Marriage to push for their rights...


Lawyer in Bountiful polygamy case uses gay marriage defence

See all you people yelling I'm full of it... you're blind to reality.

Oh, and for the record, he beat the rap. No charges filed and is now suing the state.

Now let's turn the stupid down a notch and actually read what is being said.

The Netherlands and Belgium were the first countries to give full marriage rights to homosexuals. In the United States some politicians propose “civil unions” that give homosexual couples the full benefits and responsibilities of marriage. These civil unions differ from marriage only in name.

That's a blatant lie. There is a discrepancy of roughly 400 rights between what civil unions afford and marriages offer with over 1100. Most notable among these is the right to transfer between states and have the marriage remain in effect.

Meanwhile in the Netherlands polygamy has been legalised in all but name. Last Friday the first civil union of three partners was registered. Victor de Bruijn (46) from Roosendaal “married” both Bianca (31) and Mirjam (35) in a ceremony before a notary who duly registered their civil union.

That's double speak for "polygamy is not legal in the Netherlands. Further, it states these people had a civil union, not a marriage. I would be interested in seeing the actual legal implications of this "civil union" and what weight it actually carries....

Victor: “A marriage between three persons is not possible in the Netherlands, but a civil union is. We went to the notary in our marriage costume and exchanged rings. We consider this to be just an ordinary marriage.”

Just went to the notary and exchanged rings. "WE consider this to be just an ordinary marriage." That makes no comment as to what the Netherlands considers this "marriage".

As to your second point, I am sure some will make the argument just like some might make the argument for marrying a donkey. That doesn't mean the argument has any chance of flying in a court of law in the US.
 
Back
Top Bottom