• 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

Ok, the fire department.......There are jobs in the fire department that exclude women...........Laugh that one off........

Because they don't have the upper body strength. It is also not discrimination because if they can pass the test, they are not barred.

Try again?
 
What is a true conservative? Please define without using Wikipedia.

Most true "conservatives" want a smaller government. Today's "Conservatives" advocate for larger governmental involvement in many areas.
The Goldwater "conservatives" did not advocate for big government to advance a social agenda. They were concerned with fiscal responsibility and smaller government. That is where today's "conservatives" differ completely.
 
Most true "conservatives" want a smaller government. Today's "Conservatives" advocate for larger governmental involvement in many areas.
The Goldwater "conservatives" did not advocate for big government to advance a social agenda. They were concerned with fiscal responsibility and smaller government. That is where today's "conservatives" differ completely.

That is not a "true" conservative. It is a different conservative. A "true" conservative would want no change at all in anything from government. That kind of conservative has never existed.
 
Like I told you when all your political beliefs are far left, I don't care what you call yourself you are a left winger. You may not know it but you are........Now this thread is not about me so please try and stay on the primary topic.......thanks.........

Oh please Navy...Blackdog is about as liberal as I am conservative. One thing that I do admire about Blackdog though is that unlike you....at least he supports his arguments with rational thought and not simply name calling.
 
Are you reading what I said?
Are you?
The Constitution is not based on biblical truths. It is based on reason dating back farther than the bible. Even back to Babylon.
Now explain how it is not "based on the bible" but IS based "based on reason dating back farther than the bible."

:roll:
 
My life is not run by polls.........Since Mass is very Roman Catholic as I am I would think that the people of that state would shoot down gay marriage as would every person in my church would........

Since you are Roman Catholic Navy....you must be against Capital Punishment, right? Or are you one of those "Cafeteria Catholics"?
 
You still have not shown all these laws.

Outside of the military it has been pretty much erased.

Want to try again?
I have presented two examples that clearly show gender-based discrimination.
 
I wonder if you have ever read the Declaration of Independence........

Reading and comprehending are two different things....as you consistently show here Navy....

By the way...have you ever taken five minutes to study equal protection analysis to see why you are constantly wrong in your posts here?
 
I have presented two examples that clearly show gender-based discrimination.

One of them is, one is not.

That is not "allot" of gender discrimination laws. You said it, not me.
 
I don't know what point they are speaking from but alot believe that gay marriage degrades straight marriage and degrades society .that is their opinion as it is yours........

Many of the same people felt (and probably still do) that inter-racial marriage degraded homogenous marriage and degrades society.

Does that make their opinion valid?
 

Yes, I actually know what I am talking about. You obviously don't.

Now explain how it is not "based on the bible" but IS based "based on reason dating back farther than the bible."

:roll:

For starters, here are the six principals the Constitution is based on...

Popular Sovereignty,
Limited Government,
Separation of Powers,
Checks and Balances,
Judicial Review,
Federalism

Nothing biblical there, but most of those can be traced back much farther than the Bible in one civilization or another.

"Aristotle and other ancient texts may seem irrelevant to modern-day issues such as gun control, but as Emory Law professor David Bederman argues in his new book, "The Classical Foundations of the American Constitution," classical Greek and Roman thinkers had a profound effect on the framers of the document -- and on our courts' interpretation of it today." - Emory University | Atlanta, GA | U.S. Constitution Based on Ancient Writings, Says Emory's Bederman

"Several ideas in the Constitution were new, and a large number were drawn from the literature of Republicanism in the United States, the experiences of the 13 states, and the British experience with mixed government. The most important influence from the European continent was from Montesquieu, who emphasized the need to have balanced forces pushing against each other to prevent tyranny. (This in itself reflects the influence of Polybius's 2nd century BC treatise on the checks and balances of the constitution of the Roman Republic.) British political philosopher John Locke was a major influence, and the due process clause of the Constitution was partly based on common law stretching back to Magna Carta (1215).[10]

The United States Bill of Rights consists of the ten amendments added to the Constitution in 1791, as supporters of the constitution had promised critics during the debates of 1788.[15] The English Bill of Rights (1689) was an inspiration for the American Bill of Rights. Both require jury trials, contain a right to keep and bear arms, prohibit excessive bail and forbid "cruel and unusual punishments." Many liberties protected by state constitutions and the Virginia Declaration of Rights were incorporated into the Bill of Rights.
" - [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution]United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]


The Constitution is built on the concept of "rule of the people," or society--that each person has the right to affect the laws. Please point out how this is reflected in the Bible? Or how this is influenced by the Bible?

You mite want to check out this reading list as well...

Classical Influences on US Constitution

Any more questions?
 
When did you take this position, Jerry?

images-ItsATrap-Preview.png




A point of theory Tucker and I had a while back....

If marriage is about raising children, then any couple raising children should have access to it (per the 14th amendment), and couples without children should not. This would be regardless of the couple's composition; be it gays, related, mixed race, existing marital status, etc.

I would like to point out that NJ was trying to change the purpose and definition of marriage away from the raising of children and to just any couple for the sake of that couple remaining intact.

Absent children, the state has no compelling interest in your relationships. NJ came 6 votes away from putting Big-Bro in your bedroom when Big-Bro did not have a compelling interest to do so.

***
When gays argue for marriage due to the children they rais, yet would not afford those same rights to other couples also raising children, they trip my trap. Their hyperbole can not repel logic of this magnitude!! :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
I guess I don't see it that way. I can understand the frustration of not being able to use the word "marriage", but since, as far as I know, all of the benefits of being "married" are afforded those who have civil unions, I don't see this as a defeat or setback. Just how I see it though.

Exactly --- however I'm sure there will be continued legal fights over gay couples wanting to use the word "marraige". This is what I've thought all the time - it's only half about the actual benefits afforded the partners, it's the want to be equal to heterosexual couples in all/every way including terminology and language.
 
I also think it's fair to say that there is no valid research that disputes the research that demonstrates what I have said.
Actually, that's not true.

You claimed earlier that "there is no correlation between children of same sex couple being more likely to become gay" - there indeed has been some work that disputes that. See for example: Stacey, J. & Biblarz, T.J. (2001). (How) does the sexual orientation of parents matter? American Sociological Review, 66, 159-183.
http://www.soc.iastate.edu/soc522a/PDF readings/Stacey.pdf

These are pro-gay marriage authors who (in reviewing existing research) conclude that evidence exists for at least a small positive correlation between parental sexual orientation and that of their children.

Other researchers have also pointed to articles that claim "no difference" in their abstracts, but apparent differences in the data.
 
This is all an attempt to finally expose the modern gay marriage movement for what it really is about: the validation of an identity.

Marriage is not about validating identities.
 
Since you are Roman Catholic Navy....you must be against Capital Punishment, right? Or are you one of those "Cafeteria Catholics"?

The OT in the Bible is not against capital punishment.
 
One of them is, one is not.

That is not "allot" of gender discrimination laws. You said it, not me.
You're confusing me with someone else.
 
Yes, I actually know what I am talking about. You obviously don't.



For starters, here are the six principals the Constitution is based on...

Popular Sovereignty,
Limited Government,
Separation of Powers,
Checks and Balances,
Judicial Review,
Federalism

Nothing biblical there, but most of those can be traced back much farther than the Bible in one civilization or another.

"Aristotle and other ancient texts may seem irrelevant to modern-day issues such as gun control, but as Emory Law professor David Bederman argues in his new book, "The Classical Foundations of the American Constitution," classical Greek and Roman thinkers had a profound effect on the framers of the document -- and on our courts' interpretation of it today." - Emory University | Atlanta, GA | U.S. Constitution Based on Ancient Writings, Says Emory's Bederman

"Several ideas in the Constitution were new, and a large number were drawn from the literature of Republicanism in the United States, the experiences of the 13 states, and the British experience with mixed government. The most important influence from the European continent was from Montesquieu, who emphasized the need to have balanced forces pushing against each other to prevent tyranny. (This in itself reflects the influence of Polybius's 2nd century BC treatise on the checks and balances of the constitution of the Roman Republic.) British political philosopher John Locke was a major influence, and the due process clause of the Constitution was partly based on common law stretching back to Magna Carta (1215).[10]

The United States Bill of Rights consists of the ten amendments added to the Constitution in 1791, as supporters of the constitution had promised critics during the debates of 1788.[15] The English Bill of Rights (1689) was an inspiration for the American Bill of Rights. Both require jury trials, contain a right to keep and bear arms, prohibit excessive bail and forbid "cruel and unusual punishments." Many liberties protected by state constitutions and the Virginia Declaration of Rights were incorporated into the Bill of Rights.
" - United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The Constitution is built on the concept of "rule of the people," or society--that each person has the right to affect the laws. Please point out how this is reflected in the Bible? Or how this is influenced by the Bible?

You mite want to check out this reading list as well...

Classical Influences on US Constitution

Any more questions?
None of this predates the bible. Do I need to give you a history lesson, or do you google?
 
And if children are involved I could see how it benefits society/the government. Outside of that, there is no evidence that it would or does.





This is where we part, NP. It may be their opinion, but they have no facts to base this on. I DO.

Yes, I think we are going round and round in circles here because I know that a child growing up with a father and mother is more successful then on with 2 fathers or 2 mothers...I know you guys on the left don't like "Its common sense" but it really is my friend.........A mother provides certain qualities that a father can not and vice versa and to argue that is not so is just ridiculous.....If a child did not do better with a father and a mother then God would have not set it up that way.............

.If this country only had gay people in it then it would be doomed because no children would ever be born..........A mother and a father is the natural way......
 
Many of the same people felt (and probably still do) that inter-racial marriage degraded homogenous marriage and degrades society.

Does that make their opinion valid?

No matter how you slice it marriage between the races was still with a man and a woman, not between 2 men and or 2 women or 5 men and 1 woman etc, etc, etc.....
 
Since you are Roman Catholic Navy....you must be against Capital Punishment, right? Or are you one of those "Cafeteria Catholics"?

Please don't try and change the subject, you do it all the time when your losing the debate.............thanks...........
 
Many of the same people felt (and probably still do) that inter-racial marriage degraded homogenous marriage and degrades society.

Does that make their opinion valid?

I think they are mostly dead but even so it was still between a man and a woman not between 2 gay men.....try again............:2wave:
 
Back
Top Bottom