• 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

Blackdog said:
The "flaw" is your opinion of the situation. So far you have not pointed out much but a group of surveys that may or may not be true.

I have shown multiple times why it is not a marraige, and why it is not separate under the law. You are trying to say because it is not called "marraige" it is somehow separate. I have shown this is bogus and you ignore it.

You choose not to like my answer for whatever reason, but you have shown nothing as of yet that proves it is separate.
Click to expand...

Except that there are differences between a civil union and a marriage beyond the name. They are not the same. Further, as a state issue it does not address things of a federal nature, such as tax benefits.
 
Redress said:
Except that there are differences between a civil union and a marriage beyond the name. They are not the same. Further, as a state issue it does not address things of a federal nature, such as tax benefits.
Click to expand...

This is a perfect example of you waisting my time Red.

I have answered this multiple times...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ats-gay-marriage-bill-106.html#post1058481436

I see no problem with the Federal government accepting civil unions with the same benefits as states who honor them.

This is not a Federal issue no matter how you try to spin it.
 
Blackdog said:
This is a perfect example of you waisting my time Red.

I have answered this multiple times...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ats-gay-marriage-bill-106.html#post1058481436

I see no problem with the Federal government accepting civil unions with the same benefits as states who honor them.

This is not a Federal issue no matter how you try to spin it.
Click to expand...

Except that is not how things work now, and having different states with different rules creates all sorts of problems. Civil unions are not marriage, do not have the same rights as marriage, and if you do make them the same, why have a different name for the same thing?
 
Redress said:
Except that is not how things work now, and having different states with different rules creates all sorts of problems.
Click to expand...

This is how things work. Just because you don't want them to does not make it so.

Each state is supposed to be it's own sovereign nation together under a small Federal government. Who's only purpose is to regulate commerce between the states and provide for a national defense.

All the rest is supposed to be for each state to decide.

That is what this nation was founded on.

Redress said:
Civil unions are not marriage, do not have the same rights as marriage, and if you do make them the same, why have a different name for the same thing?
Click to expand...

Because two men or two women are not a marraige, period.
 
Blackdog said:
This is how things work. Just because you don't want them to does not make it so.

Each state is supposed to be it's own sovereign nation together under a small Federal government. Who's only purpose is to regulate commerce between the states and provide for a national defense.

All the rest is supposed to be for each state to decide.

That is what this nation was founded on.



Because two men or two women are not a marraige, period.
Click to expand...

So what about the Full Faith and Credit clause?

Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, commonly known as the Full Faith and Credit Clause, addresses the duties that states within the United States have to respect the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings" of other states. According to the Supreme Court, there is a difference between the credit owed to laws (i.e. legislative measures and common law) as compared to the credit owed to judgments.

Full Faith and Credit Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...
 
winston53660 said:
So what about the Full Faith and Credit clause?
Click to expand...

I have no problem with that. I have no problem if a state married a gay couple they should have the same rights in every state. This is guaranteed in the Constitution.

My point was in the case of Civil Unions their is no reason not to do the same thing.

Red does not like this answer.
 
Blackdog said:
I have no problem with that. I have no problem if a state married a gay couple they should have the same rights in every state. This is guaranteed in the Constitution.

My point was in the case of Civil Unions their is no reason not to do the same thing.

Red does not like this answer.
Click to expand...

Okay fine while I disagree because that means as to what you said some Dixie State could enforce anti miscegenation laws in their State.
 
In my opinion it is all about the word. The word "marriage" means, in Western society, the union of one man and one woman. I am not sure why it is so important to force the meaning of the word to be changed. The word has meant the same thing for hundreds of years. We shouldn't change the meanings of words so that everyone feels included. Should we change the meaning of the word "citizen" so illegal immigrants feel included?
 
winston53660 said:
Okay fine while I disagree because that means as to what you said some Dixie State could enforce anti miscegenation laws in their State.
Click to expand...

Civil Unions from other states would have to be recognized whether it is legal or not in that state.

It would still be up to each state as to whether or not civil unions being preformed are legal in that state.

I see your point about the anti miscegenation laws, but see no way around it other than taking more power from the perspective states.

Damned if we do, and damned if we don't.
 
Blackdog said:
The Captain at DP. ;)
Click to expand...

It IS a Star Trek reference. Good one.



Of course they could, it does not change my view so people like "critical thought" can just keep waisting time.

Two men is not, and will never be a marraige in my eyes.
Click to expand...

This is fair. Though I disagree with you, and I would hope that one of your intelligence would accept some of the evidence provided, I give you credit for admitting that your position is opinion and you stand by it. Kinda like a matter of faith. I can respect that... at least you don't hide behind misrepresentations. Good for you on being honest.
 
Blackdog said:
You have yet to prove this? So far it is just your opinion from 8 out of 50 states. The rest of the states would disagree as some have even gone so far as to write it into there Constitutions.
Click to expand...

Hey, I already won. I proved that there was not a consensus on the definition of marriage. That is all I set out to do with my counterarguments.

Which is pretty much what you tried to do.
Click to expand...

I tried to use an appeal of the majority fallacy by arguing that a minority of states recognize same sex marriage? Oooooooookay.

No need, you are wrong according to the majority of the country and it's laws.
Click to expand...

So? I lived a few hundred years ago, then I would be wrong by the majority of the country if I tried to do away with slavery or allow women to vote. If I lived a few decades ago I would be wrong by the majority of this country if I tried to do away with laws against interracial marriage. Your fallacy proves nothing aside from the fact that you don't know how to use logic.
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
Hey, I already won. I proved that there was not a consensus on the definition of marriage. That is all I set out to do with my counterarguments.
Click to expand...

:lol:

CriticalThought said:
I tried to use an appeal of the majority fallacy by arguing that a minority of states recognize same sex marriage? Oooooooookay.
Click to expand...

:shock:

CriticalThought said:
So? I lived a few hundred years ago, then I would be wrong by the majority of the country if I tried to do away with slavery or allow women to vote. If I lived a few decades ago I would be wrong by the majority of this country if I tried to do away with laws against interracial marriage. Your fallacy proves nothing aside from the fact that you don't know how to use logic.
Click to expand...

What ever you say. :mrgreen:
 
Blackdog said:
What ever you say. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

I'm curious. Why don't you just live by your religious beliefs yourself? Why do you have to impose them on others? Why can't you just let people who aren't hurting anyone live their own lives the way they want to live them? How is same sex marriage going to hurt your marriage?
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
I'm curious. Why don't you just live by your religious beliefs yourself? Why do you have to impose them on others? Why can't you just let people who aren't hurting anyone live their own lives the way they want to live them? How is same sex marriage going to hurt your marriage?
Click to expand...

You think this is just about religion? That is a pretty typical response. I don't mean that in a bad way, it just is.

It is part of it, but even before I was a Christian, I was against same sex marraige. I think it is wrong to support that life style. I don't think gays are different or bad people, but I will not say the life style is OK when I see it as wrong. I do not chastise or shun people who are gay, as I have friends whom I care for greatly who live that life style, it makes them no less friends. In any case I do not condone their life style and they know this.

Then you say it's not going to hurt my marraige and I agree. That has nothing to do with my decision. This again is also a typical response.

I am not imposing anything on anyone. I am following my own moral compass in the society I live in politically, and legally within the law. This is in the end, the American way.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
You think this is just about religion? That is a pretty typical response. I don't mean that in a bad way, it just is.

It is part of it, but even before I was a Christian, I was against same sex marraige. I think it is wrong to support that life style. I don't think gays are different or bad people, but I will not say the life style is OK when I see it as wrong. I do not chastise or shun people who are gay, as I have friends whom I care for greatly who live that life style, it makes them no less friends. In any case I do not condone their life style and they know this.

Then you say it's not going to hurt my marraige and I agree. That has nothing to do with my decision. This again is also a typical response.

I am not imposing anything on anyone. I am following my own moral compass in the society I live in politically, and legally within the law. This is in the end, the American way.
Click to expand...

WHy do you see the lifestyle as wrong?
 
Blackdog said:
You think this is just about religion? That is a pretty typical response. I don't mean that in a bad way, it just is.

It is part of it, but even before I was a Christian, I was against same sex marraige. I think it is wrong to support that life style. I don't think gays are different or bad people, but I will not say the life style is OK when I see it as wrong. I do not chastise or shun people who are gay, as I have friends whom I care for greatly who live that life style, it makes them no less friends. In any case I do not condone their life style and they know this.

Then you say it's not going to hurt my marraige and I agree. That has nothing to do with my decision. This again is also a typical response.

I am not imposing anything on anyone. I am following my own moral compass in the society I live in politically, and legally within the law. This is in the end, the American way.
Click to expand...

So you don't agree with a certain way people live even though it in no way affects you, and you feel justified in supporting policies which would deny them marriage even though it would be beneficial to their families and would in no way affect you?

In essence, all you are saying is you find gay sex repugnant. America was established by rationals, not by people who pushed emotion based agendas. Your moral compass is ludicrous if it is not based on reason.

But your response is pretty typical.
 
Last edited:
Guys, let's not be so hard on Blackdog. He's been pretty clear in saying that this is his opinion, that he is aware that it is not necessarily based on evidence, and that it is not his position to place his beliefs on anyone. We've seen plenty of folks argue from the anti-GM position not be this honest nor be this respectful; most are demeaning, dishonest, and/or demonstrate a lack of logic and substantiation. Blackdog is not arguing from that position. In a sense, he is arguing from the theist position in a religion vs. atheism debate. He is arguing from a faith position and not placing those beliefs on others.
 
CriticalThought said:
So you don't agree with a certain way people live even though it in no way affects you, and you feel justified in supporting policies which would deny them marriage even though it would be beneficial to their families and would in no way affect you?
Click to expand...

I don't see how this would benefit their family's anymore than a civil union, but sure I agree.

CriticalThought said:
In essence, all you are saying is you find gay sex repugnant. America was established by rationals, not by people who pushed emotion based agendas. Your moral compass is ludicrous if it is not based on reason.
Click to expand...

America was founded by people who viewed females as second class citizens and owned slaves.

So where does that leave your argument?

PS how did gay sex get into this?

CriticalThought said:
But your response is pretty typical.
Click to expand...

No it's not, but you already know this.
 
Last edited:
CaptainCourtesy said:
Guys, let's not be so hard on Blackdog. He's been pretty clear in saying that this is his opinion, that he is aware that it is not necessarily based on evidence, and that it is not his position to place his beliefs on anyone. We've seen plenty of folks argue from the anti-GM position not be this honest nor be this respectful; most are demeaning, dishonest, and/or demonstrate a lack of logic and substantiation. Blackdog is not arguing from that position. In a sense, he is arguing from the theist position in a religion vs. atheism debate. He is arguing from a faith position and not placing those beliefs on others.
Click to expand...

Thanks Captain, but it's cool.

They are just asking the same questions and do not understand my view, and never will.

The problem is they want me to respect their views when they have no respect for mine.
 
Blackdog said:
I don't see how this would benefit their family's anymore than a civil union, but sure I agree.
Click to expand...

"Justice denied anywhere diminishes justice everywhere."
-MLK

You only hurt yourself when you try to dictate how other people should live their lives by denying them what you cannot reasonably deny them.

America was founded by people who viewed females as second class citizens and owned slaves.

So where does that leave your argument?
Click to expand...

With something called the Constitution of the United States, which is the law of the land and a particular 14th amendment to that document which includes something called the Equal Protection Clause which states that no state shall deny people equal protection under the law.

No it's not, but you already know this.
Click to expand...

Your response is as typical as it gets. A religious argument shielded behind wisdom of repugnance.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
Thanks Captain, but it's cool.

They are just asking the same questions and do not understand my view, and never will.

The problem is they want me to respect their views when they have no respect for mine.
Click to expand...

I may not agree with you, but you have been FAR more respectful and honest about your position than just about anyone else from "the other side" I've debated. You'd be a good "teammate" in a debate against atheists.
 
Wait. Maybe I'm thinking of K-1 and not Blackdog.

Dammit! Why are there so many of these gay threads! I can't keep track of who is making what argument!
 
CriticalThought said:
"Justice denied anywhere diminishes justice everywhere."
-MLK

You only hurt yourself when you try to dictate how other people should live their lives by denying them what you cannot reasonably deny them.
Click to expand...

I am not denying anyone anything? How many times do I have to repeat that? Please point out where I have gay hostages tied up so they can't get married?

I also support civil unions, so again by keeping marraige between 1 man and woman I am not denying anyone anything.

CriticalThought said:
With something called the Constitution of the United States, which is the law of the land and a particular 14th amendment to that document which includes something called the Equal Protection Clause which states that no state shall deny people equal protection under the law.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately most of our society does not consider 2 men a marraige. This is so much so, a majority of states have written it into the Constitutions of said states.

So, it does not apply.

CriticalThought said:
"Your response is as typical as it gets. A religious argument shielded behind wisdom of repugnance.
Click to expand...

where did you come off with this repugnance thing? Please point out where I have said anything about sex in any way? I am talking about the life style as a whole.

You are getting into things and accusing me of things that have little or nothing to do with my arguments or beliefs.

Your tone is getting angry and abusive. You need to calm yourself down and understand not everyone agrees and live with it.
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
Wait. Maybe I'm thinking of K-1 and not Blackdog.

Dammit! Why are there so many of these gay threads! I can't keep track of who is making what argument!
Click to expand...

K-1 and Blackdog are NOTHING alike.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom