• 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

... Currently gays are treated different than straights in their ability to marry the person they choose. The Court may say that this discrimination is ok, because that discrimination may serve an "important" governmental interest. If the court finds that there is no important governmental interest served, it will be stricken as unconstitutional.
...

sure some NAMBLA-philes agree with your simple view too
 
Yes your right........sisters can marry brothers, sisters an marry sisters, brothers can marry brothers, fathers can marry sons, mothers can marry daughters, etc. all doing it for the benefits provided for married people.....they would be sexless marriages, incest not involved.......You will pay my income taxes needed to provide all the benefits for these marriages...Go for it..........:2wave:

This is what it boils down to for you -- money. You only approve of using tax dollars for a special, privileged class. That's discrimination, but you obviously don't care.

The best solution is to get government out of marriage so that our tax dollars aren't being wasted providing discriminatory benefits.

If my tax dollars are used to support straight marriages, then your dollars should be used to support gay marriages. It's only fair.
 
This is what it boils down to for you -- money. You only approve of using tax dollars for a special, privileged class. That's discrimination, but you obviously don't care.

The best solution is to get government out of marriage so that our tax dollars aren't being wasted providing discriminatory benefits.

If my tax dollars are used to support straight marriages, then your dollars should be used to support gay marriages. It's only fair.

I love how you lefties love to spend money as long as its the taxpayer's and not yours............:roll:
 
I love how you lefties love to spend money as long as its the taxpayer's and not yours............:roll:

Two fallacies in that statement. I'm not a leftie and I prefer minimal spending. Government is too large. It needs spending cuts and program elimination. One way to save money is to get government out of marriage, thereby eliminating all the tax funded programs used to provide benefits.

Feel free to ignore this clarification also.
 
sure some NAMBLA-philes agree with your simple view too

Simple view? The ability to marry the person that you love?

:doh

Wow...what a concept. I suppose you like the Government telling you who you are allowed to marry.
 
Might want to specify that two human adults should have the right to marry. That way, the NAMBLA remark holds no water. Actually it doesn't anyway, because it is foolish to make the connection that strongly.
 
Might want to specify that two human adults should have the right to marry. That way, the NAMBLA remark holds no water.
Just like that? If we instead specify that a man and a woman should have the right to marry, does that mean that any gay marriage remarks "hold no water?" I'm having trouble following your reasoning.
 
Two fallacies in that statement. I'm not a leftie and I prefer minimal spending. Government is too large. It needs spending cuts and program elimination. One way to save money is to get government out of marriage, thereby eliminating all the tax funded programs used to provide benefits.

Feel free to ignore this clarification also.

Did I mention your name? Have you got a guilty conscience?
 
Might want to specify that two human adults should have the right to marry. That way, the NAMBLA remark holds no water. Actually it doesn't anyway, because it is foolish to make the connection that strongly.



Are Polygamysts adults?:confused:
 
Did I mention your name?

As a matter of fact, yes. You did so by quoting my post and using the 2nd person pronoun "you".

And you thought grammar lessons ended when you left school ;)
 
Actually Navy...most of the marriages are not. Kinda defeats your argument there now doesn't it.

Where's your evidence for that?

If you have none, that sounds like blatant religious bigotry.

Besides, it has no more bearing on the question of polygamy between consenting adults than NAMBLA has on the question of same-sex marriage.
 
Where's your evidence for that?

If you have none, that sounds like blatant religious bigotry.

Besides, it has no more bearing on the question of polygamy between consenting adults than NAMBLA has on the question of same-sex marriage.

There shouldn't be laws against polygamy as long as it is between consenting adults. Why should the government have any involvement in it.

BTW...I grew up in Utah...so I know a little something about polygamy. The problem that most people have with polygamists is that young women are married to older husbands in their young teens. Young males are driven out of the communities in order for the older males to remain in power.
 
There shouldn't be laws against polygamy as long as it is between consenting adults. Why should the government have any involvement in it.

Then why are you spending so much time arguing about it?


BTW...I grew up in Utah...so I know a little something about polygamy. The problem that most people have with polygamists is that young women are married to older husbands in their young teens. Young males are driven out of the communities in order for the older males to remain in power.

Sounds like religious stereotyping to me.
 
Actually Navy...most of the marriages are not. Kinda defeats your argument there now doesn't it.

No one is for children marrying, I am talking about adults and you know it.........don't try and muddy the water like you always do..........Your not in court now............
 
Then why are you spending so much time arguing about it?




Sounds like religious stereotyping to me.

When have I been arguing about it? Find me one post where I have argued against Polygamy.
The only thing I've ever said is that polygamy and gay marriage would not be treated the same in equal protection analysis. Anyone who knows anything about the Supreme Court could tell you that.

As for your second point. Its not religious stereotyping. If you follow Utah news it is a very widely known fact.
Are there polygamists that don't fit this mold? Absolutely and again I don't have an issue with them. The problem that most people have with polygamy is the indoctrination of young teenage girls into the marriages
 
No one is for children marrying, I am talking about adults and you know it.........don't try and muddy the water like you always do..........Your not in court now............


You are the one that raised the issue Navy....
 
When have I been arguing about it? Find me one post where I have argued against Polygamy.
The only thing I've ever said is that polygamy and gay marriage would not be treated the same in equal protection analysis. Anyone who knows anything about the Supreme Court could tell you that.

I posted about that very thing just a few posts back. You didn't comment.


As for your second point. Its not religious stereotyping. If you follow Utah news it is a very widely known fact.
Are there polygamists that don't fit this mold? Absolutely and again I don't have an issue with them. The problem that most people have with polygamy is the indoctrination of young teenage girls into the marriages

It's all anecdotal, giving no sense of scope whatsoever. Mentioning NAMBLA is purely factual, too, but it's not legit, either.
 
Go back and read your post. My post was a response to yours pointing out where you were wrong....and ironically at that.

I think you know me well enough to know that I would never advocate adults having sex with children so let that be the end of it........Nice try though........:roll:
 
Back
Top Bottom