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




It's all anecdotal, giving no sense of scope whatsoever. Mentioning NAMBLA is purely factual, too, but it's not legit, either.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.

I'm not saying that its a legitimate argument to prevent polygamous marriages. My response was only to point out why NP was flawed in his argument.

I agree..like the weak NAMBLA argument. There really is no legitimate governmental interest between regulating marriages between consenting adults. Why should big government have a say in who consenting adults want to enter into a relationship with. Government should stay out of regulating morality.
 
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:

I never said that you were Navy. You were just trying to say that Polygamists are consenting adults. The reality is, in many cases, they are not.
 
I never said that you were Navy. You were just trying to say that Polygamists are consenting adults. The reality is, in many cases, they are not.

That goes without saying but we are not talking about them are we so why bring it up? We are talking about consenting adults as we are with gays.........Its a smoke screen to bring up children......
 
That goes without saying but we are not talking about them are we so why bring it up? We are talking about consenting adults as we are with gays.........Its a smoke screen to bring up children......

No.....Navy, go back and look at the history of the thread here.

You were making the claim that Polygamists are "consenting adults". I pointed out that in actuality many are not.

It was pointing out the irony in the failed argument that you were attempting to make.
 
That goes without saying but we are not talking about them are we so why bring it up? We are talking about consenting adults as we are with gays.........Its a smoke screen to bring up children......

No one talks about brother and sister marrying in this debate but you have no qualms about bringing that up every chance you get.

What's good for the goose...
 
It must be hell for you here in DP Groucho as compared to WS where all the members lean to the far left......You actually can have a debate in DP...:2wave:

I obviously love a debate and am pleased to be here. And, so far, I have only had a problem with one person here.

I have to conclude that this person consistently pretends I have said something else and then argues against that instead for one of three reasons:

1. He doesn't know he's doing it. In other words, he is sincere in his attempts to debate, just incompetent at it.

2. He knows he's doing it and does it consciously because he thinks it's a valid debate technique. This is dishonest, especially when he later claims he won the argument.

3. He knows what he's doing and doesn't care and is just a troll trying to make people angry. This is juvenile and the way to deal with juveniles who play like that is to ignore them.

I mean, come on -- I argue for a living. I get paid to argue. I know how to have a debate and never shy away from them. If I am walking away, it's because it's a useless fight and a waste of time. It is not any sort of concession, as proved when I continued the debate with others in the same thread.
 
No one talks about brother and sister marrying in this debate but you have no qualms about bringing that up every chance you get.

What's good for the goose...

I may be no one but I am talking about it.....You better believe that family members living together would love the benefits that marrried couples get simply by getting married........There would be other groups like two men and two women, or one women and three men............If gays were allowed to marry all kind of groups would come out of the woodwork.......

You and I have talked before and I thought you agreed with me on civil unions with full benefits and that the "bleeding heart liberal" that are looking all the time looking for a cause to make themselves feel good would just shut up because they are hurting your cause for civil unions........At least that is what my friend on our golf team who is gay feels.........

I guess you changed your mind on the issue and are ging with the Liberals........
 
I may be no one but I am talking about it.....You better believe that family members living together would love the benefits that marrried couples get simply by getting married........There would be other groups like two men and two women, or one women and three men............If gays were allowed to marry all kind of groups would come out of the woodwork.......

You and I have talked before and I thought you agreed with me on civil unions with full benefits and that the "bleeding heart liberal" that are looking all the time looking for a cause to make themselves feel good would just shut up because they are hurting your cause for civil unions........At least that is what my friend on our golf team who is gay feels.........

I guess you changed your mind on the issue and are ging with the Liberals........
Yes Navy....some people actually do open their minds. You might want to try it sometime.
 
I obviously love a debate and am pleased to be here. And, so far, I have only had a problem with one person here.

I have to conclude that this person consistently pretends I have said something else and then argues against that instead for one of three reasons:

1. He doesn't know he's doing it. In other words, he is sincere in his attempts to debate, just incompetent at it.

2. He knows he's doing it and does it consciously because he thinks it's a valid debate technique. This is dishonest, especially when he later claims he won the argument.

3. He knows what he's doing and doesn't care and is just a troll trying to make people angry. This is juvenile and the way to deal with juveniles who play like that is to ignore them.

I mean, come on -- I argue for a living. I get paid to argue. I know how to have a debate and never shy away from them. If I am walking away, it's because it's a useless fight and a waste of time. It is not any sort of concession, as proved when I continued the debate with others in the same thread.

Waaah. Every time you get put in a difficult postion, you pull the cry card out. You're not fooling anyone.

If you think I'm misrepresenting you, then explain exactly how and make me look like an idiot. Throwing a tantrum only makes YOU appear thusly. But that's up to you.
 
I may be no one but I am talking about it.....You better believe that family members living together would love the benefits that marrried couples get simply by getting married........There would be other groups like two men and two women, or one women and three men............If gays were allowed to marry all kind of groups would come out of the woodwork.......

You and I have talked before and I thought you agreed with me on civil unions with full benefits and that the "bleeding heart liberal" that are looking all the time looking for a cause to make themselves feel good would just shut up because they are hurting your cause for civil unions........At least that is what my friend on our golf team who is gay feels.........

I guess you changed your mind on the issue and are ging with the Liberals........

I am going with what's right. It took quite a while for me to see the error in my thought but what happened here in California pretty much did it for me. If the "pro family values" crowd had an ounce of morality among them, you would still see me right in the middle with your friend. However, they exposed themselves as opportunistic extremists that make up in fanaticism what they lack in dignity and nobility.

And besides, Chief, you have lived long enough to know that being against the idea of "separate but equal" is historically a conservative concept.
 
I am going with what's right. It took quite a while for me to see the error in my thought but what happened here in California pretty much did it for me. If the "pro family values" crowd had an ounce of morality among them, you would still see me right in the middle with your friend. However, they exposed themselves as opportunistic extremists that make up in fanaticism what they lack in dignity and nobility.

And besides, Chief, you have lived long enough to know that being against the idea of "separate but equal" is historically a conservative concept.

If only the rest of America saw the deceitful and hateful campaign that the right-wing ran on prop-8 in California. They were desperate and resorted to whatever means it took.
 
Yes Navy....some people actually do open their minds. You might want to try it sometime.

Pot meet kettle.........Give me a break........No question I am very partisan but you are the biggest left winger in DP now that 26 Champs was banned with the biggest closed mind......Sometimes I actually think you are him by your arguments......
 
Pot meet kettle.........Give me a break........No question I am very partisan but you are the biggest left winger in DP now that 26 Champs was banned with the biggest closed mind......Sometimes I actually think you are him by your arguments......

Navy...I refuse to believe that you are beyond hope. Even an old mind can be opened with a little education.
 
I am going with what's right. It took quite a while for me to see the error in my thought but what happened here in California pretty much did it for me. If the "pro family values" crowd had an ounce of morality among them, you would still see me right in the middle with your friend. However, they exposed themselves as opportunistic extremists that make up in fanaticism what they lack in dignity and nobility.

And besides, Chief, you have lived long enough to know that being against the idea of "separate but equal" is historically a conservative concept.

You do know there are thousands of people out there like me who want gays to have the same rights as married people but are geting turned off by the "Feel Good" liberals like Disney Dude and are beginning to say the hell with them......People have the rock solid beliefs on marriage.......Some day maybe 100 years down the road you might get marriage but you are not going to get it now.........

As far as California goes you know more about it then I do but I think people just got pissed off when they vote to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman and activist judges over rule the will of the people.......You keep going against what the majority wants in California you are only going to hurt the cause for civil unions with full benefits...........
 
You do know there are thousands of people out there like me who want gays to have the same rights as married people but are geting turned off by the "Feel Good" liberals like Disney Dude and are beginning to say the hell with them......People have the rock solid beliefs on marriage.......Some day maybe 100 years down the road you might get marriage but you are not going to get it now.........

As far as California goes you know more about it then I do but I think people just got pissed off when they vote to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman and activist judges over rule the will of the people.......You keep going against what the majority wants in California you are only going to hurt the cause for civil unions with full benefits...........

Why wait 100 years to do what is the right thing to do?

I know that some people hate change...but for America to truly be a great nation, discrimination must end.
 
I am going with what's right. It took quite a while for me to see the error in my thought but what happened here in California pretty much did it for me. If the "pro family values" crowd had an ounce of morality among them, you would still see me right in the middle with your friend. However, they exposed themselves as opportunistic extremists that make up in fanaticism what they lack in dignity and nobility.

And besides, Chief, you have lived long enough to know that being against the idea of "separate but equal" is historically a conservative concept.[/QUOTE]

Some would say you have the same right they have.....You can marry anyone of the opposite sex......You are equal......You want a special right..........I am not really sure how I feel about that..I can see the point on both sides.....
 
You do know there are thousands of people out there like me who want gays to have the same rights as married people but are geting turned off by the "Feel Good" liberals like Disney Dude and are beginning to say the hell with them......People have the rock solid beliefs on marriage.......Some day maybe 100 years down the road you might get marriage but you are not going to get it now.........
.

Interesting you think gays should have equal rights yet just call it a civil union...I wonder if your slippery slope arguments like brother "civil unioning" sister also apply to civil unions? And if not why not?
 
Why wait 100 years to do what is the right thing to do?

I know that some people hate change...but for America to truly be a great nation, discrimination must end.

Because judging by what is happening in every state (31-0 against gay marriage so far) right now you are not going to get it done and like I said you are pissing people off with your demands.......
 
Interesting you think gays should have equal rights yet just call it a civil union...I wonder if your slippery slope arguments like brother "civil unioning" sister also apply to civil unions? And if not why not?

You call it a slippery slope which is the usual cop out, I call it a fact..Speaking for myself if I was single and had a daughter, son, or sister living with me and we could just go down to the nearest justice of the peace, get married and could get benefits of hundreds of dollars a month I would do it in a New York heartbeat..........
 
You do know there are thousands of people out there like me who want gays to have the same rights as married people but are geting turned off by the "Feel Good" liberals like Disney Dude and are beginning to say the hell with them......People have the rock solid beliefs on marriage.......Some day maybe 100 years down the road you might get marriage but you are not going to get it now.........

As far as California goes you know more about it then I do but I think people just got pissed off when they vote to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman and activist judges over rule the will of the people.......You keep going against what the majority wants in California you are only going to hurt the cause for civil unions with full benefits...........

There is no more compromise with that lot. They exposed their campaign as being about hate, not about morality. If their campaign had really been about morality and belief in what was right, they wouldn't have resorted to such vile, underhanded tactics and base lies to inflame the lowest instincts of the population in what was a clear deceit and manipulation.

I would love to see civil unions with all rights equal to marriage and an end to this asinine conflict. But that's not going to happen as long as you have those extremist jackasses on your side speaking for you. You can make this out to be the gays fault for having the audacity to stand up and demand equal treatment, but that does nothing to address the whole "family values" crowd who will never stop until they have curtailed all the rights of gay people and imposed their moral disapproval as law.

Even if we were granted civil unions, do you not realize that the "family values" lobby will continue to push for the suppression of those rights that come with the civil union. However, if the institution is equal, right down to the name, then it will only hinder them in their efforts to hold up good citizens from peacefully enjoying their rights. I doubt they will make an attempt to suppress the rights within their own institution...though you never know. They don't seem to be the most rational kids on the block.
 
Because judging by what is happening in every state (31-0 against gay marriage so far) right now you are not going to get it done and like I said you are pissing people off with your demands.......

It doesn't answer why America should wait another 100 years to finally do the right thing.
 
There is no more compromise with that lot. They exposed their campaign as being about hate, not about morality. If their campaign had really been about morality and belief in what was right, they wouldn't have resorted to such vile, underhanded tactics and base lies to inflame the lowest instincts of the population in what was a clear deceit and manipulation.

I would love to see civil unions with all rights equal to marriage and an end to this asinine conflict. But that's not going to happen as long as you have those extremist jackasses on your side speaking for you. You can make this out to be the gays fault for having the audacity to stand up and demand equal treatment, but that does nothing to address the whole "family values" crowd who will never stop until they have curtailed all the rights of gay people and imposed their moral disapproval as law.

Even if we were granted civil unions, do you not realize that the "family values" lobby will continue to push for the suppression of those rights that come with the civil union. However, if the institution is equal, right down to the name, then it will only hinder them in their efforts to hold up good citizens from peacefully enjoying their rights. I doubt they will make an attempt to suppress the rights within their own institution...though you never know. They don't seem to be the most rational kids on the block.

Which is EXACTLY why gays should never compromise for civil unions. You hit it perfectly Jall.
 
There is no more compromise with that lot. They exposed their campaign as being about hate, not about morality. If their campaign had really been about morality and belief in what was right, they wouldn't have resorted to such vile, underhanded tactics and base lies to inflame the lowest instincts of the population in what was a clear deceit and manipulation.

I would love to see civil unions with all rights equal to marriage and an end to this asinine conflict. But that's not going to happen as long as you have those extremist jackasses on your side speaking for you. You can make this out to be the gays fault for having the audacity to stand up and demand equal treatment, but that does nothing to address the whole "family values" crowd who will never stop until they have curtailed all the rights of gay people and imposed their moral disapproval as law.

Even if we were granted civil unions, do you not realize that the "family values" lobby will continue to push for the suppression of those rights that come with the civil union. However, if the institution is equal, right down to the name, then it will only hinder them in their efforts to hold up good citizens from peacefully enjoying their rights. I doubt they will make an attempt to suppress the rights within their own institution...though you never know. They don't seem to be the most rational kids on the block.

If rational gays got together and got rid of the "feel good liberals like DD" and took their cause to the proper authorities I believe you would have a good chance to get civil unions, but I also believe your chances are decreasing for civil unions because of the reasons I mentioned.........

Just like my friend Dave (the guy on our golf team who sadly lost his partner a while back) says to the militant gays and the feel good liberals "Just shut the **** up".
 
You call it a slippery slope which is the usual cop out, I call it a fact..Speaking for myself if I was single and had a daughter, son, or sister living with me and we could just go down to the nearest justice of the peace, get married and could get benefits of hundreds of dollars a month I would do it in a New York heartbeat..........

Slippery slope is just an easy way putting it that most people on both sides understand encompass several objections people against gay marriage have used yourself included. And you did not answer the question. Do these same arguments the slipperyt slope ones apply to civil unions as they do to marriage and if not why not?
 
Back
Top Bottom