• 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:
The article is written entirely by a Theodore Olson, a major figure in the Conservative legal movement, and the man who represented your hero, George W., when he was up against Gore for the presidency.

Of course, admitting that you engage in confirmation bias really explains a lot about you.
Click to expand...

I know who he is...He is Barbara Olson's husband and he has gone a little nuts since she died on one of the planes that went down on 9/11.......Oh and when is your girlfriend Cindy Sheehan going to write something?
 
Navy Pride said:
I know who he is...He is Barbara Olson's husband and he has gone a little nuts since she died on one of the planes that went down on 9/11.......Oh and when is your girlfriend Cindy Sheehan going to write something?
Click to expand...
You didn't bother to read the article, did you?
 
Navy Pride said:
I actually did when I was young and a liberal.......Then I grew up got a lot smarter and learned the truth.........You should try it.........:rofl
Click to expand...
So if a conservative writes an article that gets published in a liberal magazine, does that somehow change the content of the article?
 
Navy Pride said:
I told you I don't read left wing garbage....what part of that do you not understand?:confused:
Click to expand...
I told you Ted Olson is a conservative. What part of that don't you understand?
 
Jerry said:
It was written by Christians, with perhaps one or two exceptions, both of whom admitted that even if we don't know God exists it is better to assume that God does.
Click to expand...

It was written primarily be Thomas Jefferson, a deist. I'm not sure whether Thomas Jefferson bought into Pascal's wager, but if the fact that he tore up a Bible and made his own scripture containing only the teachings of Jesus and none of the supernatural miracles is any indication, I would say probably not.

Oh a re-direct...very nice...and I might add that I love how you're trying to paint Conservatives with a 'liberal brush now.
Click to expand...

Classical liberal. I said so when I presented the link.
You're trying to re-name Conservatives so as to encourage Conservatives to sympathize with Liberals by blurring the lines.
Click to expand...

So conservatives don't identify with classical liberalism?

It's not a Conservative argument because marriage is not a sterile legal contract. The legalities are the accessory to the union, they are not the core of the union to which the relationship is an accessory.
Click to expand...

Huh?
 
Coronado said:
I told you Ted Olson is a conservative. What part of that don't you understand?
Click to expand...

And I told you Olson was a conservative before his wife was killed and then turned to the left.......
 
Navy Pride said:
And I told you Olson was a conservative before his wife was killed and then turned to the left.......
Click to expand...
Really. So you can read minds now? Fascinating.

You are pretty much alone in this contention, by the way.
 
CriticalThought said:
It was written primarily be Thomas Jefferson, a deist.
Click to expand...

You might be interested to learn that Thomas Jefferson only offered a supplementary view on Jesus....not the Creator, not the OT laws, not the bible as a whole. Only Jesus.

Anyway, apparently deists accept a "Creator", as Thomas Jefferson felt it necessary to include the Creator and Nature's God in the DoI, the same "Creator" who frowns on gay sex, and therefore gay 'marriage by extension.

Your sources are hypocritical because their arguments contradict themselves. You need better material.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
You might be interested to learn that Thomas Jefferson only offered a supplementary view on Jesus....not the Creator, not the OT laws, not the bible as a whole. Only Jesus.
Click to expand...

Isn't that exactly what I just said?

Anyway, apparently deists accept a "Creator", as Thomas Jefferson felt it necessary to include the Creator and Nature's God in the DoI, the same "Creator" who frowns on gay sex, and therefore gay 'marriage by extension.
Click to expand...

Nature's God doesn't frown on gay sex. Otherwise there would not be hundreds of different species of animals that engage in it. See, the moment you step outside the Bible and have to account your arguments with reason, you are going to lose. You better stick to the noble lie that is the Biblical God.
 
CriticalThought said:
Isn't that exactly what I just said?
Click to expand...

No, it's not.

CriticalThought said:
Nature's God doesn't frown on gay sex. Otherwise there would not be hundreds of different species of animals that engage in it. See, the moment you step outside the Bible and have to account your arguments with reason, you are going to lose. You better stick to the noble lie that is the Biblical God.
Click to expand...

Ahh so gay 'marriage is about marrying animals?
 
Jerry said:
Ahh so gay 'marriage is about marrying animals?
Click to expand...

You are right. Gay marriage is about marrying animals. And indoctrinating children so as to recruit them to homosexuality. Oh, and destroying religious liberties.

:roll:
 
CriticalThought said:
You are right. Gay marriage is about marrying animals. And indoctrinating children so as to recruit them to homosexuality. Oh, and destroying religious liberties.

:roll:
Click to expand...

Don't forget about spreading Socialism. They also do that.;)
 
CriticalThought said:
You are right. Gay marriage is about marrying animals. And indoctrinating children so as to recruit them to homosexuality. Oh, and destroying religious liberties.

:roll:
Click to expand...

One wonders why you brought up animals, then.
 
ScottD said:
Don't forget about spreading Socialism. They also do that.;)
Click to expand...

Strange that Liberals are not asserting the arguments found mainly amung radical evangelicals.
 
Jerry said:
One wonders why you brought up animals, then.
Click to expand...

He brought it up to prove that homosexuality is natural, so a nature god would not frown down upon it.
 
ScottD said:
He brought it up to prove that homosexuality is natural, so a nature god would not frown down upon it.
Click to expand...

OOooohhh the Naturalistic Fallacy....well that's just another reason to reject his sources.
 
Jerry said:
OOooohhh the Naturalistic Fallacy....well that's just another reason to reject his sources.
Click to expand...

It usually goes like this with you...

Jerry: God says homosexuality is bad.
Me: How so?
Jerry: Homosexuality is unnatural
Me: Animals engage in homosexual behavior in the wild
Jerry: Oh, so now you are getting your morals from nature!
Me: Then what is your basis for arguing against homosexuality?
Jerry: God says homosexuality is bad.

Frankly, its too retarded to go through again.
 
CriticalThought said:
It usually goes like this with you...

Jerry: God says homosexuality is bad.
Me: How so?
Jerry: Homosexuality is unnatural
Me: Animals engage in homosexual behavior in the wild
Jerry: Oh, so now you are getting your morals from nature!
Me: Then what is your basis for arguing against homosexuality?
Jerry: God says homosexuality is bad.

Frankly, its too retarded to go through again.
Click to expand...

Wow that's not even close to an accurate representation of our conversation.
 
Jerry said:
Wow that's not even close to an accurate representation of our conversation.
Click to expand...

That is more or less how it comes across on my side.

You want an ethical argument for homosexuality?

If it occurs between consenting adults, it does not harm anyone.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Everyone needs to stop the personal attacks, now.
 
CriticalThought said:
That is more or less how it comes across on my side.
Click to expand...

Even though I didn't say anything close to what you claim I did? I mean the words are even spelled differently.

CriticalThought said:
You want an ethical argument for homosexuality?
Click to expand...

I already have one, but thank you :2wave:

CriticalThought said:
If it occurs between consenting adults, it does not harm anyone.
Click to expand...

Oh, yeah, wow, how original, the 'consenting adult' argument. It takes it's place next to the 'strictly legal contract', 'rights' and 'change marriage into something else' arguments. I thought you had something original to bring to the table. You're just recycling the same old material.


****
CT: Here's an original argument by a Conservative.

Me: Actually that's a mix of 2 old arguments by Liberals, and this part in particular is hypocritical.

CT: That part is not hypocritical because Jefferson changed some other unrelated portion of the bible.

Me: Since Jefferson did not change the relevant portion of the bible, that part of the argument is still hypocritical.

CT: If it's natural, it is therefore acceptable/good/moral'.

Me: You're using old arguments which have already lost, and are now using obvious logical fallacies.

CT: ZOMG you're hiding behind the bible!!

Me: You brought scripture into this with your link, not me. Don't like it, don't bring it up.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
Even though I didn't say anything close to what you claim I did? I mean the words are even spelled differently.



I already have one, but thank you :2wave:



Oh, yeah, wow, how original, the 'consenting adult' argument. It takes it's place next to the 'strictly legal contract', 'rights' and 'change marriage into something else' arguments. I thought you had something original to bring to the table. You're just recycling the same old material.


****
CT: Here's an original argument by a Conservative.

Me: Actually that's a mix of 2 old arguments by Liberals, and this part is hypocritical.

CT: That part is not hypocritical because Jefferson changed some other unrelated portion of the bible.

Me: Since. Jefferson did not change the relevent portion of the bible, that part of the argument is still hypocritical.

CT: If it's natural, it is therefore acceptable'.

Me: You're using old arguments which have already lost, and are now using obvious logical fallacies.

CT: ZOMG you're hiding behind the bible!!

Me: You brought scripture into this with your link, not me. Don't like it, don't bring it up.
Click to expand...

:roll: Yeah, that is exactly how it went.

To get the thread back on track...

There are numerous conservative arguments that could be made for same sex marriage. Of course, not everyone agrees on what constitutes conservative ideals.
 
CriticalThought said:
:roll: Yeah, that is exactly how it went.
Click to expand...

Yup :mrgreen:

CriticalThought said:
To get the thread back on track...
Click to expand...

To try again because you keep loosing...

CriticalThought said:
There are numerous conservative arguments that could be made for same sex marriage. Of course, not everyone agrees on what constitutes conservative ideals.
Click to expand...

Ahh moving the goal posts now, I see....trying to make room to define Conservationism however you wish, just as you were trying to re-paint Conservatives with the hyphenated 'liberal label a couple pages back.

Step #1: Rename the thing. You're holding true to procedure at least.

Generally speaking, if you can't imagine Rush Limbaugh supporting a particular argument, it's probably not a Conservative argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom