• 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 am here to backup Navy Pride's argument that 2 men or 2 women cannot make a baby. He has had to repeat his argument over and over but no one here seems to be accepting it. He is correct, whether any of you want to admit it or not.

Of course they can't.

Now explain what relevance procreation has to marriage?
 
Of course they can't.

Now explain what relevance procreation has to marriage?

Marriage shoud take place before a child is born. How else is the child to have his rightful name and birthright? Do you want all children to be born as bastards outside of wedlock?
 
Is there a point to this biology lesson?

Yes. He is demonstrating the naturalistic logical fallacy for us all... and at the same time demonstrating an illogical and therefore irrelevant argument.
 
I am here to backup Navy Pride's argument that 2 men or 2 women cannot make a baby. He has had to repeat his argument over and over but no one here seems to be accepting it. He is correct, whether any of you want to admit it or not.

He can repeat his argument all he wants. It is irrelevant as to the issue of GM. THAT'S the point y'all are missing.
 
Marriage shoud take place before a child is born. How else is the child to have his rightful name and birthright? Do you want all children to be born as bastards outside of wedlock?

SHOULD. All that is, is your opinion. Means nothing if you are trying to prove something in debate.

And your comment is a strawman. He never said what you are claiming.
 
SHOULD. All that is, is your opinion. Means nothing if you are trying to prove something in debate.

And your comment is a strawman. He never said what you are claiming.

It's not my opinon, but merely the truth, and perhaps we should hear from Navy Pride, since his interpreters are not doing a good job. Better still, what does God have to say about this arrangement?
 
Last edited:
Marriage shoud take place before a child is born. How else is the child to have his rightful name and birthright?

Little Lord Bicycleman, son of the Duke and Duchess of Bicyclemania. Heir to the Bicycle fortune...?




Do you want all children to be born as bastards outside of wedlock?

Yeah, that's EXACTLY what this is all about. A leftist conspiracy to create a country of little bastards....:roll::roll::roll: Jesus Christ, don't be thick!
 
Marriage shoud take place before a child is born. How else is the child to have his rightful name and birthright? Do you want all children to be born as bastards outside of wedlock?

That's a moral issue and has no relevance since your morality isn't my morality.

But since you're hung up on this marriage-procreation bit too, how long would you give a straight married couple to produce a baby before terminating their marriage: 1 year?, 2 years? 3 years? other?
 
A couple making their own baby seems to be an important issue for you.

When should a straight couple's marriage be terminated for failing to make their own baby?
  • after 1 year?
  • after 2 years?
  • after 3 years?
  • other

Never my left wing friend...Straights couples are societys norm....
 
NP -- you struck out pages ago....

Social conservative logic hits a wall when it runs into the 14 amendment.

Never, 14th amendment also applies to polygamy, and other groups defined by their sexual preference......you want them to marry to my left wing friend......well if you allow gays you have to allow them........

You even have to allow fathers and daughters, daughters and mothers, fahers and sons, etc who want to marry for the benefits provided. They would of course refrain from all sexual activity....

All of these people are protected by the 14th amendment you so flippantly quote........You allow gays, you have to allow them to.............
 
The fact remains that without some external help two gays can not make a baby on their own......

Sometimes many straight cannot make a baby on their own without aid. Are you going to discriminate against them as well?
Seriously, Navy....is Sperm donation where you make the distinction?
 
I am here to backup Navy Pride's argument that 2 men or 2 women cannot make a baby. He has had to repeat his argument over and over but no one here seems to be accepting it. He is correct, whether any of you want to admit it or not.

Fine...but are you going to deny "marriage" to couples who cannot procreate or choose not to?

Seems like you would have to if you base "marriage" solely on the able for a man to impregnate a female (which....incidentallly....occurs with or without a marriage certificate)
 
There are any number of ways a gay couple could get a baby, some involving previous strait relationships, artificial insemination or surrogate mother arrangements, adoption, fostering, and others.

But none of them are by themselves.
 
Never, 14th amendment also applies to polygamy, and other groups defined by their sexual preference......you want them to marry to my left wing friend......well if you allow gays you have to allow them........

You even have to allow fathers and daughters, daughters and mothers, fahers and sons, etc who want to marry for the benefits provided. They would of course refrain from all sexual activity....

All of these people are protected by the 14th amendment you so flippantly quote........You allow gays, you have to allow them to.............

Navy....yet again...demostrating that he doesn't understand equal protection analysis.
 
Sometimes many straight cannot make a baby on their own without aid. Are you going to discriminate against them as well?
Seriously, Navy....is Sperm donation where you make the distinction?

But they are what is accepted as the norm..........
 
Fine...but are you going to deny "marriage" to couples who cannot procreate or choose not to?
Seems like you would have to if you base "marriage" solely on the able for a man to impregnate a female (which....incidentallly....occurs with or without a marriage certificate)

Again they are what society considers the norm...........
 
Never, 14th amendment also applies to polygamy, and other groups defined by their sexual preference......you want them to marry to my left wing friend......well if you allow gays you have to allow them........

You even have to allow fathers and daughters, daughters and mothers, fahers and sons, etc who want to marry for the benefits provided. They would of course refrain from all sexual activity....

All of these people are protected by the 14th amendment you so flippantly quote........You allow gays, you have to allow them to.............

As long as government is involved in marriage, then ALL forms of adult consensual relationships should be allowed.
 
Hypocrisy noted.

btw, I'm a libertarian; not left wing.

You can put anything beside your name but when it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck its usually a duck..........stand up for your political beliefs.....I am a conservative...I wear my conservatism on my arm like a badge of courage.........
 
You can put anything beside your name but when it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck its usually a duck..........stand up for your political beliefs.....I am a conservative...I wear my conservatism on my arm like a badge of courage.........

I am standing up for my political beliefs. This is very libertarian. Just because it happens to agree with another belief system, doesn't make it that system.
 
So if I want 5 wives then that is OK with you huh?:rofl

It's none of my business. As long as it's consensual, do what you want.

My preference is that government not be involved in marriage at all. Marriage should be strictly a social contract with no legal rights whatsoever.
 
But they are what is accepted as the norm..........

That's fine...but if you base the criteria of marriage on procreation then how can you justifiable make exceptions without applying them to all?
 
You can put anything beside your name but when it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck its usually a duck..........stand up for your political beliefs.....I am a conservative...I wear my conservatism on my arm like a badge of courage.........

Why then do you hide your embarassment of being a Republican?
 
Back
Top Bottom