• 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

CriticalThought said:
You are winning in the long term. However there are some notable losses.

-California
-Maine
-New York
-New Jersey

The score is 31-0 when it comes to state voter initiatives for same sex marriage. Four of the most liberal states in the union just voted either by voter initiative or by legislature against same sex marriage.

The reality is that the trend for same sex marriage has halted in the United States. There is not a state save Massachusetts where same sex marriage could win as a voter initiative simply because half the country still sees homosexuality as immoral.

That is why the Supreme Court will probably end up deciding this. Going state by state is no longer a winning strategy for gay rights advocates.
Click to expand...

What you do not note is that the number who find homosexuality is declining steadily, and the number who find is morally acceptable are rising even faster. Source: Americans Evenly Divided on Morality of Homosexuality

2001: 40 % acceptable, 53 % morally wrong
2008: 48 % for both.

I suspect that this trend will continue and possibly accelerate. SCOTUS might decide it before the numbers change enough to make it so it passes voter initiatives, but it is not needed. It will within the next few years start passing based on voter initiatives.
 
Redress said:
What you do not note is that the number who find homosexuality is declining steadily, and the number who find is morally acceptable are rising even faster. Source: Americans Evenly Divided on Morality of Homosexuality

2001: 40 % acceptable, 53 % morally wrong
2008: 48 % for both.

I suspect that this trend will continue and possibly accelerate. SCOTUS might decide it before the numbers change enough to make it so it passes voter initiatives, but it is not needed. It will within the next few years start passing based on voter initiatives.
Click to expand...

I guess we can only wait and see.

If California reverses Prop 8 in 2012, then you might have a case.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
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.
Click to expand...

I didn't read the entire thread so if this has been answered please forgive me.

The difference between civil unions and marriages is that the federal government does not recognize civil unions of gays.
 
ptif219 said:
What does the definition say? Is it so hard to admit that is what it means?
Click to expand...
IMO the definition doesn't matter so much as realizing that what is considered "normal" (or abnormal) is a bit of a value judgement. Very often, to say something is "normal" is to say it's ok/acceptable - which is what I think you were getting at with your original point?
 
Kal'Stang said:
The difference between civil unions and marriages is that the federal government does not recognize civil unions of gays.
Click to expand...
They don't recognize marriages of gays.... I don't see the difference?
 
Taylor said:
They don't recognize marriages of gays.... I don't see the difference?
Click to expand...

That is what gays want. Being recognized in one state does nothing if the rest of the country, including the federal government does not recognize thier rights.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Because MrVicchio and other gay-marriage haters like feeling like they have "won" something. :roll:
 
Let's see, gay marriage fails, in every state.

"Civil Unions" however, work out pretty well. All the benefits, without pissing off the public by altering the definition of Marriage.

So.... if this was really about rights, they would push Civil Unions across all 50 states and go from there.

But, we all know that all isn't the end game here, and that's why it's a big issue.
 
MrVicchio said:
Let's see, gay marriage fails, in every state.

"Civil Unions" however, work out pretty well. All the benefits, without pissing off the public by altering the definition of Marriage.

So.... if this was really about rights, they would push Civil Unions across all 50 states and go from there.

But, we all know that all isn't the end game here, and that's why it's a big issue.
Click to expand...

Oh wah. Like definitions haven't been changed before?

Let's take a look at the word "faggot". It use to mean a bundle of sticks. Now it is an epitaph towards homosexuals. The word "gay" went from meaning "happy" to another epitaph towards homosexuals and then changed again to just meaning homosexuals (this last change only happened because homosexuals took the word for themselves and turned it around on homophobic's).

Why is it OK for people to change the definition of words towards a group into a derogatory term and yet it is wrong to expand the definition of marriage to include EVERYONE and not just one particular group?
 
Kal'Stang said:
Oh wah. Like definitions haven't been changed before?

Let's take a look at the word "faggot". It use to mean a bundle of sticks. Now it is an epitaph towards homosexuals. The word "gay" went from meaning "happy" to another epitaph towards homosexuals and then changed again to just meaning homosexuals (this last change only happened because homosexuals took the word for themselves and turned it around on homophobic's).

Why is it OK for people to change the definition of words towards a group into a derogatory term and yet it is wrong to expand the definition of marriage to include EVERYONE and not just one particular group?
Click to expand...


They don't want us to change the definition of the word "Everyone" or Justice for "ALL".
 
Navy Pride said:
Odd, different maybe, abnormal nope..........I think that a guy with 20 ear ring piercing is abnormal, you probably don't.........we can all have different opinions............
Click to expand...


Actually, that's pretty ****in' weird. 20 piercings in a man's ear goes beyond abnormal in my simple world. But I'm kind of a live and let live kinda guy. As long as my kids know better, and they do, I look at it in amusment. Much like a freak show. My neighbor's little girl just got married to this very nice young man. But he is totally mutilating his ear lobes. That's ****ed up. Not my business though.

Being an old salt myself, tattoo's, ear rings and bell bottoms are nothing new to me either. Ain't 13 buttons a bitch when ya gotta pee? :mrgreen: Now THAT'S abnormal.
 
Last edited:
MrVicchio said:
Let's see, gay marriage fails, in every state.

"Civil Unions" however, work out pretty well. All the benefits, without pissing off the public by altering the definition of Marriage.

So.... if this was really about rights, they would push Civil Unions across all 50 states and go from there.

But, we all know that all isn't the end game here, and that's why it's a big issue.
Click to expand...

Seperate But Equal is inherently unequal.

Seriously, this **** has been said before by people arguing against miscegenation, and it will get defeated in exactly the same manner.
 
Warspite said:
Seperate But Equal is inherently unequal.

Seriously, this **** has been said before by people arguing against miscegenation, and it will get defeated in exactly the same manner.
Click to expand...

Separate but equal referred to race not sexual behavior.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Oh wah. Like definitions haven't been changed before?

Let's take a look at the word "faggot". It use to mean a bundle of sticks. Now it is an epitaph towards homosexuals. The word "gay" went from meaning "happy" to another epitaph towards homosexuals and then changed again to just meaning homosexuals (this last change only happened because homosexuals took the word for themselves and turned it around on homophobic's).

Why is it OK for people to change the definition of words towards a group into a derogatory term and yet it is wrong to expand the definition of marriage to include EVERYONE and not just one particular group?
Click to expand...

Because this isn't about expanding the definition of a word. Its about changing the law. :roll:
 
As a citizen of the Peoples Republic of NJ, I'm glad to see that the state legislature is focusing on the real issues. :roll: Who gives a flying crap. This state's budget is out of control, they've yet to discuss Jessica's Law, they just closed down a perfectly good prison(to sell off the land to developers which fell through), are making employees take 10 unpaid "furlough" days to save money(even though they sometimes have to hire overtime to cover the person furloughed for that day...no I'm not kidding), and a new governor is coming in in a week and this is all they have to worry about? Typical of this state.
 
texmaster said:
Separate but equal referred to race not sexual behavior.
Click to expand...

No "Separate but equal" referred to a policy that tried to claim "Equality" by treating a class of people "Equally" but saying you have to have your own facilities.

That concept is in no way limited to "race/ethnicity" any more than any other part of the Constitution is limited to individuals based on race, gender, etc.
 
disneydude said:
No "Separate but equal" referred to a policy that tried to claim "Equality" by treating a class of people "Equally" but saying you have to have your own facilities.
Click to expand...

Wrong again. It was not a class of people. It was a race of people.

That concept is in no way limited to "race/ethnicity" any more than any other part of the Constitution is limited to individuals based on race, gender, etc.
Click to expand...

You really need to read it.

Separate but Equal: Segregation in the Public Schools

It came from Brown vs the Board of Education.


You are dishonestly trying to expand its meaning to include something it never did. This is exactly the kind of thing I've been talking about over and over again. Pro gay marriage advocates trying to compare marriage to race.

Its dishonest and cannot be proven.
 
NJCardFan said:
As a citizen of the Peoples Republic of NJ, I'm glad to see that the state legislature is focusing on the real issues. :roll: Who gives a flying crap. This state's budget is out of control, they've yet to discuss Jessica's Law, they just closed down a perfectly good prison(to sell off the land to developers which fell through), are making employees take 10 unpaid "furlough" days to save money(even though they sometimes have to hire overtime to cover the person furloughed for that day...no I'm not kidding), and a new governor is coming in in a week and this is all they have to worry about? Typical of this state.
Click to expand...

Civil rights is not a laughing matter. Bet you wouldn't be saying what you just said if it was *your* right to equal treatment being threatened.
 
texmaster said:
Wrong again. It was not a class of people. It was a race of people.
Click to expand...

There is no difference in social terms - Women, Blacks, Gays, etc.; all have been and in many cases still are groups who suffer fom inequality, and the same arguments for equality apply to all of them.

You really need to read it.

Separate but Equal: Segregation in the Public Schools

It came from Brown vs the Board of Education.
Click to expand...

Duh?

You are dishonestly trying to expand its meaning to include something it never did. This is exactly the kind of thing I've been talking about over and over again. Pro gay marriage advocates trying to compare marriage to race.

Its dishonest and cannot be proven.
Click to expand...

Want another slice of reality? Loving v. Virginia.

"Marriage" is merely a superficial issue, the issue is equality.
 
Warspite said:
There is no difference in social terms - Women, Blacks, Gays, etc.; all have been and in many cases still are groups who suffer fom inequality, and the same arguments for equality apply to all of them.
Click to expand...
Inequality compared to the rest of the world?


Duh?



Want another slice of reality? Loving v. Virginia.

"Marriage" is merely a superficial issue, the issue is equality.
Click to expand...
You left out the part about how the chuches decided there was no theological reason against mixed marriages.
 
Last edited:
Warspite said:
Civil rights is not a laughing matter. Bet you wouldn't be saying what you just said if it was *your* right to equal treatment being threatened.
Click to expand...

How is my rights any more than theirs? I can't marry a guy either. But guess what? I can't shack up with a woman and get the same "domestic partnership" rights that they do. Which is something I don't understand. They get all the rights and privileges a married couple gets without the red tape of a marriage license yet a heterosexual non married couple doesn't and you're complaining about gay rights? Give me a break. Like other minorities, they don't want equal rights, they want special rights. But here's a clue: they can get married. They can have the $20K dream wedding, even get the Pope himself to perform the ceremony if he is so inclined. Nothing is stopping them. No, they want the piece of paper. Hell, if I got the same privileges they got without the legal hassle when my first marriage went to pot, I'd have never gotten married in the first place. So, in a sense I don't have the same rights as they do. They can adopt as a couple, put each other on their insurance, live together for a million years if they want but the whole issue is over a little piece of paper. Please.
 
Last edited:
American said:
Inequality compared to the rest of the world?
Click to expand...

Inequality of a different degree is still inequality.

You left out the part about how the chuches decided there was theological reason against mixed marriages.
Click to expand...

:lol: I don't care what the churches have to say in regards to the issue, nor should you. Legalism is not a spiritual matter, just as spiritual matters are not legal matters.

I don't want to force churches to marry same sex couples; quite the contrary, I'd rather enforce complete laicity on the issue and abolish marriage as a legal institution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom