• 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

I'm just saying that there have been enough decisions of either variety that a quick Google search will answer your question for you.

If you are going to make an argument, make it. Telling people to google the answer isn't an argument.
 
If you are going to make an argument, make it. Telling people to google the answer isn't an argument.


American is the one who made it. Completely without support, as well. (And, he's wrong - Google it :mrgreen: )
 
American is the one who made it. Completely without support, as well. (And, he's wrong - Google it :mrgreen: )

If you want to go toe for toe comparing liberal activist decisions to conservative activist decisions just say so and I'll be happy to bury you. :)
 
You missed my point entirely. In NJ, with gay civil unions, gay couples have the same benefits, I believe as straight married couples. My point is, that if GM gets defeated in NJ, the only loss is the loss of a word.


Paraphrasing: 'separate but equal is not equal'.

Altho, it certainly does sound like NJ does do better than most states. The most profound personal story I read expanding on this was Andrew Sullivan telling the story of his long time partner coming to family functions for years, and being introduced as a friend or a partner or whatever. But then one year, after MA allowed gay marriage, his mother introduced his husband as her 'son in law'. He said the sense of inclusion, of family, of joining the circle of tradition was profound.
 
If you want to go toe for toe comparing liberal activist decisions to conservative activist decisions just say so and I'll be happy to bury you. :)

I don't. However, American apparently does. And he claimed to have never heard of conservative judicial activism. That's a knowledge gap that's easily rectified. And, since he's the one making the argument, onus is on him. As you said, "If you are going to make an argument, make it."

You just addressed your remarks to the wrong poster. American is the one who needs to make the argument.
 
Last edited:
I don't. However, American apparently does. And he claimed to have never heard of conservative judicial activism. That's a knowledge gap that's easily rectified. And, since he's the one making the argument, onus is on him.

That isn't what he said.

How many times have you seen judges making conservative laws from the bench? Hmmm?

He never said it never happens. He questioned how often it happens.
 
How many times have you seen judges making conservative laws from the bench? Hmmm?

That isn't what he said.



He never said it never happens. He questioned how often it happens.



He should answer the question. I inferred that he'd never heard of any instances. I'd be interested to hear American's argument. He should actually you know, make it.
 
He should answer the question. I inferred that he'd never heard of any instances. I'd be interested to hear American's argument. He should actually you know, make it.

He didn't infer that at all. You inferred that.

As I said, just say the word and I will be happy to compare how often the two sides use the court system to get what they want.
 
Last edited:
Truthfully, to me this is irrelevant. NJ already has civil unions which affords gay couples rights for adoptions, benefits, and other things that married couples have. Though my overall position is that the term "marriage" should be used only for religious purposes and all governmental unions should be "civil unions"... gay or straight, the way that NJ handles it currently, is fine by me. I'm not sure why this is a big deal.

Most people have no problem with civil unions with equal rights but are strongly against allowing gays to marriage and every place it has went to the vote by the people it has been strongly defeated...........
 
The one he posited.

He didn't infer that at all. You inferred that.

As I said, just say the word and I will be happy to compare how often the two sides use the court system to get what they want.
 
He didn't infer that at all. You inferred that.

As I said, just say the word and I will be happy to compare how often the two sides use the court system to get what they want.


Exactly so. I inferred his meaning, b/c he made no argument. He should google the rest of his argument. Like TED said. :twisted:
 
Exactly so. I inferred his meaning, b/c he made no argument. He should google the rest of his argument. Like TED said. :twisted:


Sorry, he challenged the other person to list the conservative activism obviously setting them up for a serious fall. That was the plan :2wave:
 
Most people have no problem with civil unions with equal rights but are strongly against allowing gays to marriage and every place it has went to the vote by the people it has been strongly defeated...........

What is the problem with the legal codification of civil unions for heterosexual couples just like it would be for homosexual couples?

And just leave the word marriage up to various private institutions.
 
Sorry, he challenged the other person to list the conservative activism obviously setting them up for a serious fall. That was the plan :2wave:


What's the matter, different rules for different ideolgies? Is American not able to you know, MAKE the argument. Should you not be telling AMERICAN to google the rest of his argument, rather than TED?

I detect double standards here.
 
How many times have you seen judges making conservative laws from the bench? Hmmm?

Maybe you should reevaluate your views. ;) Society moves forward. You stay in the same place.
 
What's the matter, different rules for different ideolgies? Is American not able to you know, MAKE the argument. Should you not be telling AMERICAN to google the rest of his argument, rather than TED?

I detect double standards here.

Its called baiting. The very fact you refused my challenge on the same terms shows you really aren't interested in the facts of the subject :)
 
What is the problem with the legal codification of civil unions for heterosexual couples just like it would be for homosexual couples?

And just leave the word marriage up to various private institutions.

Sorry, never going to happen, honestly most of us believe gay marriage has very little to do with it..........the issue is forcing acceptance of the gay lifestyle down our throats..Making it the same as the straight lifestyle ......Gay marriage is just the first step in rying to accomplish that......
 
Its called baiting. The very fact you refused my challenge on the same terms shows you really aren't interested in the facts of the subject :)


Um, no, I believe you said what AMERICAN was doing was baiting. Did you not say he was asking a question in order to set the poster up for a big fall?

Is that not baiting .... hmmmmm?
 
Maybe you should reevaluate your views. ;) Society moves forward. You stay in the same place.

Where every state amendment vote stated that marriage is one man one woman. Here in Florida we have done it twice.
 
Back
Top Bottom