• 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

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

Don't fall into their trap my friend, hey are losing the debate and grasping for straws by chnanging the subject of the thread..they have a habit of doing that when they get creamed............
 
I don't care but that does not mean I don't know the primary mission of the anus as you seem to not know..............

How did you go about determining this "primary mission"?
 
Actually, you are wrong. Same sex marriage can be approved under the grounds that a strong evidence base shows that it is beneficial to both partcipants and that same sex couples can raise children just as well as different sex couples. Can you provide such an evidence base for polygamous families? Incestuous couples? People who want to have sex with animals or children? I don't think so.

In addition to that, up to 8 to 10 million children of gay parents and same sex couples would benefit from same sex marriage. Can you argue anywhere near that number of children would benefit from incestuous marriage? Polygamous marriage?

Trying to oversimply this argument isn't going to work. The parental evidence and number of children who would benefit are factors supporting same sex marriage, and there is no such parental evidence or number of children who would benefit from recognizing other forms of marriage like polygamy or incestuous.



Maybe you can help me my left wing friend.......Where has same sex marriage been approved when a vote by the people took place?
 
Yes my left wing friend its called the 14th amendment, the equal protecttion clause..........

You just did it again.

I am not "left wing" it is not my name, and not my ideology. I am a Jeffersonian Constitutionalist for lack of a better term.

I am not even getting into the bigotry you preach against Arabs as that is a thread all by itself.

Your arguments and attitude exemplify the worst America has to offer. You would sacrifice freedom for security. You would sacrifice freedom for one group of people based on little more then ethnicity. You would sacrifice freedom in the name of God, who said to OBEY the laws of your government because HE is the one that put them in place.

In the end you seem to feel anyone who disagrees with you is "left wing" whether they are or not. :roll:
 
Oh Please...that is just plain silly. The school would already be aware when the child registered...and let me also give you a clue....non-"traditional" families are quite common and the vast majority of people in this country are accepting even if not necessarily supportive of the concept. The only people who would make an issue of this in today's world arethe old fuddy-duddies and the evangelicals that want to spin it into an issue to promote their radical agenda.

Actually, no. It is the leftist movement who has spun it into their radical agenda and branded anyone espousing morals and decency to be bigots.
 
Maybe you can help me my left wing friend.......Where has same sex marriage been approved when a vote by the people took place?

You mean legislatively? Maine, Vermont. and New Hampshire.

You mean by people referendum? Nowhere.

Of course I don't why that is an argument since interracial marriage was never approved by people referendum. To my knowledge, neither was women's suffrage or the freedom of slaves. Are you arguing we should undo all those things because the people didn't vote for it, they were carried out by the Supreme Court and Legislature?
 
You just did it again.

I am not "left wing" it is not my name, and not my ideology. I am a Jeffersonian Constitutionalist for lack of a better term.

I am not even getting into the bigotry you preach against Arabs as that is a thread all by itself.

Your arguments and attitude exemplify the worst America has to offer. You would sacrifice freedom for security. You would sacrifice freedom for one group of people based on little more then ethnicity. You would sacrifice freedom in the name of God, who said to OBEY the laws of your government because HE is the one that put them in place.


In the end you seem to feel anyone who disagrees with you is "left wing" whether they are or not. :roll:

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.........
 
You mean legislatively? Maine, Vermont. and New Hampshire.

You mean by people referendum? Nowhere.

Of course I don't why that is an argument since interracial marriage was never approved by people referendum. To my knowledge, neither was women's suffrage or the freedom of slaves. Are you arguing we should undo all those things because the people didn't vote for it, they were carried out by the Supreme Court and Legislature?


No No No...I mean by a vote of the people....
 
Actually, no. It is the leftist movement who has spun it into their radical agenda and branded anyone espousing morals and decency to be bigots.
Nothing radical about referring to "parents" rather than "mother and father", that was silly nonsense creating an issue where there is none - except for bigoted fundamentalists.
 
Maybe you can help me my left wing friend.......Where has same sex marriage been approved when a vote by the people took place?

I wonder how "the people" would vote in MA these days. Would care to check the polls?
 
No No No...I mean by a vote of the people....

As I said, nowhere, but neither was interracial marriage. The Supreme Court had to decide people of different races could marry because 19 states had made it illegal.
 
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.........

Yea, you got nothing, typical. :roll:

Have a nice day.
 
As I said, nowhere, but neither was interracial marriage. The Supreme Court had to decide people of different races could marry because 19 states had made it illegal.

Sorry interracial marriage was about a man and a woman.gay marriage is not..........
 
I wonder how "the people" would vote in MA these days. Would care to check the polls?

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........
 
As I said, nowhere, but neither was interracial marriage. The Supreme Court had to decide people of different races could marry because 19 states had made it illegal.

Interracial marriage involved a man and a woman..gay marriage does not......
 
Nothing radical about referring to "parents" rather than "mother and father", that was silly nonsense creating an issue where there is none - except for bigoted fundamentalists.

But homosexuals and their supporters are not?
 
Don't fall into their trap my friend, hey are losing the debate and grasping for straws by chnanging the subject of the thread..they have a habit of doing that when they get creamed............

Me thinks that's a strawman argument that I am accused of so much, here. :lol:
 
How did you go about determining this "primary mission"?

God determined its function when he created man and woman. Ask any doctor its function, and he will also tell you. Now you can plug it up if you so desire, but eventually you're not going to be very happy at the outcome. :lol:
 
Sorry interracial marriage was about a man and a woman.gay marriage is not..........

Huh?

Your argument was that the people should vote on civil rights.

Stick with one argument.

Since you seem to like to change your argument and go in circles, I'll just write them all out and the rebuttals for each.

1. The purpose of the anus is not for anal sex.

Has nothing to do with marriage because either heterosexuals or homosexuals could engage in anal sex. Lesbians don't engage in anal sex. And neither the government nor you has any business with what people do in their bedrooms.

2. Same sex marriage would allow for alternative forms of marriage.

There is a strong evidence base supporting same sex marriage that does not extend to other forms of marriage such as polygamy or incest. This includes evidence which shows that both partners benefit from marriage and same sex couples are just as capable of raising children as different sex couples. Given that the civil purpose of marriage is to provide for stable relationships and homes to raise children, these are vital factors which the evidence supports for same sex marriage, but not for polygamous or incestuous relationships.

Also, the number of children being raised in polygamous and incestuous homes is very small, but 8 to 10 million children are being raised by gay parents and same sex couples, which indicates a large population of young people who could benefit from same sex marriage.

3. The people should vote on same sex marriage.

This is a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. The founders of this country envisioned protecting the rights of minorities from the will of the majority. In doing so, they created a system of checks in balances, whereby the legislature and the Supreme Court could protect the civil rights of minorities. Hence, it makes no more sense to have people vote on same sex marriage than it would have to have had them vote on interracial marriage. For that matter, just because a majority is against an idea, does not mean the idea is wrong. Most people were against interracial marriage, but that doesn't mean interracial marriage was wrong then or is wrong now.
 
Last edited:
God determined its function when he created man and woman. Ask any doctor its function, and he will also tell you. Now you can plug it up if you so desire, but eventually you're not going to be very happy at the outcome. :lol:

I figured that "God" would come into the equation eventually. :mrgreen:
 
Back
Top Bottom