• 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

Charles Martel said:
But, not a single question of mine has been answered. Still not a single point I've made taken to task. That's telling. When the argument gets personal, your opponent has already won, jallman, we move on.
Click to expand...

You've not taken a single issue "to task". What you have done is erroneously claim that marriage doesn't have all the traits of other contracts, you've brought up a totally separate issue about incest and polygamy, and you've made other assertions that have nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

The Vikings could have won that game! What in the world is Favre doing throwing across his body and behind him, but then, he's just trying to make a play. Give New Orleans credit too, they went right after him. He looked like a stone being skipped across a lake on a few plays, Favre is a warrior....oh..what..you don't care about any of this? Cause I don't care about mirth either we'll move on.;)
Click to expand...

Well if you don't care about emotional states of others, don't constantly bring them up as both an ad hom and a red herring.

You still haven't answered any of my questions.

1) Is same sex marriage 0-31 in referendum?
2) Do you use the government to deny polygamy in your state?
3) What other contracts do you deny in your state?
Click to expand...

1. Yes, but irrelevant to the argument that was being made.
2. Yes, but irrelevant to the argument that was being made.
3. Many, but irrelevant to the argument that was being made.

That is the last bong hit for you.
Click to expand...

Reported.
 
Panache said:
Why are gay couples begging the government for the right to use the word marriage again? Why don't they just use it? Who's going to stop them?
Click to expand...

Gay couples aren't begging to use the word "married". It isn't even about using the word. Many gay couples already call themselves "married". It's about the legal rights and privileges that accompany being legally married by the state.
 
Gay couples aren't begging to use the word "married". It isn't even about using the word. Many gay couples already call themselves "married". It's about the legal rights and privileges that accompany being legally married by the state.
Click to expand...

Oh. I was under the impression that in this particular case, the exact same legal rights and privileges were already afforded to them by civil unions.
 
Panache said:
Oh. I was under the impression that in this particular case, the exact same legal rights and privileges were already afforded to them by civil unions.
Click to expand...

Then you are under the wrong impression. There are 1138 rights afforded to married couples. Civil unions afford the participants some of those rights but one right in particular is missing: the freedom to travel between states and have that union remain in effect. Further, the federal government does not recognize civil unions at all for matters of inheritance and taxation.

These are no small matters.
 
Then you are under the wrong impression. There are 1138 rights afforded to married couples. Civil unions afford the participants some of those rights but one right in particular is missing: the freedom to travel between states and have that union remain in effect. Further, the federal government does not recognize civil unions at all for matters of inheritance and taxation.

These are no small matters
Click to expand...

Ah, I was just going off of this post on the first page.

Truthfully, to me this is irrelevant. NJ already has civil unions which affords gay couples rights for adoptions, benefits, and other things that married couples have. Though my overall position is that the term "marriage" should be used only for religious purposes and all governmental unions should be "civil unions"... gay or straight, the way that NJ handles it currently, is fine by me. I'm not sure why this is a big deal.
Click to expand...

If CC was mistaken here, then I retract my argument.

Why are there 1138 rights being denied to me because of my choice to remain unmarried?

What is so special about gay couples that they deserve to leave the ranks of us here in the oppressed class and join the ranks of the oppressors?
 
Panache said:
Why are gay couples begging the government for the right to use the word marriage again? Why don't they just use it? Who's going to stop them?
Click to expand...

It isn't about using a word. Its about whether big government should be able to come in and tell you how you can and cannot marry.

I do not believe that the Government has any place in legislating the most personal matters between consenting adults. Why anyone wants the government in our bedrooms has always surprised me, especially because those advocating for big government are usually those who CLAIM that they support a smaller government.
 
Panache said:
Ah, I was just going off of this post on the first page.



If CC was mistaken here, then I retract my argument.

Why are there 1138 rights being denied to me because of my choice to remain unmarried?

What is so special about gay couples that they deserve to leave the ranks of us here in the oppressed class and join the ranks of the oppressors?
Click to expand...

I'm not going to disagree with you. But, the point of the marriage contract is that, given the natural tendancy of the human being to choose life-long mates and that being directly tied to the pursuit of one's happiness, the state makes concessions for us to choose one person to be irreplacable to us. That being said, the state cannot say to one group that their choice of person is morally worthy while the other group's is not.

It is about equality under the law and impartiality of the state.
 
jallman said:
I'm not going to disagree with you. But, the point of the marriage contract is that, given the natural tendancy of the human being to choose life-long mates and that being directly tied to the pursuit of one's happiness, the state makes concessions for us to choose one person to be irreplacable to us. That being said, the state cannot say to one group that their choice of person is morally worthy while the other group's is not.

It is about equality under the law and impartiality of the state.
Click to expand...

Amen...brother!
 
Panache said:
Ah, I was just going off of this post on the first page.



If CC was mistaken here, then I retract my argument.

Why are there 1138 rights being denied to me because of my choice to remain unmarried?

What is so special about gay couples that they deserve to leave the ranks of us here in the oppressed class and join the ranks of the oppressors?
Click to expand...

From a state standpoint, I believe that those in NJ who are in civil unions are afforded all the benefits that heterosexual marriages afford... though I might be wrong and there might be some that are NOT. However, jallman is correct, I believe and there are absences in federal benefits... which is why I completely reject a states' rights position on this. It needs to be a FEDERAL law.
 
Navy Pride said:
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.......
Click to expand...

Let 'em come. We can just allocate more taxes to cover their benefits also.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
However, jallman is correct, I believe and there are absences in federal benefits... which is why I completely reject a states' rights position on this. It needs to be a FEDERAL law.
Click to expand...

You're right. As long as DOMA is in play, marriage is NOT a states' rights issue ..it's a federal issue and needs to be settled on that level.

The states' rights folks shot themselves in the foot by supporting DOMA.
 
jallman said:
I'm not going to disagree with you. But, the point of the marriage contract is that, given the natural tendancy of the human being to choose life-long mates and that being directly tied to the pursuit of one's happiness, the state makes concessions for us to choose one person to be irreplacable to us.
Click to expand...

:shock:And you're arguing earlier that marriage is like any other contract? What in the world!! You're trying to tell me.....or it turns out...sell me....that any other contract...given the natural tendencies for humans to enter contracts....and leading to "pursuit of one's happiness" is the equal to ANY other contract that requires two people to be responsible or some such nonsense. You've now jumped into what the "point" of the marriage contract is?:rofl

The State even making "concessions for us to choose one person irreplaceable to us"............yeah....just like every other contract mentioned in example in this thread, huh?

Point of a marriage contract, Sir? Based on a "natural tendency of humans".....Sir? Directly tied to our very happiness Sir.....is like any other contract.

I debated in college, formal rules, tight lipped sort of stuff, actually chasing a chick and that's why I got into it. This right here....this mistake you just made defining marriage and thus making it unique and quite unlike any other contract...is called a colossal error on your part. You've just contradicted yourself Jallman.....big time. There isn't a contract on this earth in the manner in which YOU just described while you're pretending otherwise just days ago. For crying out loud, may I ask for a consistent argument to take on, this all over Left field back and forth contradictions are difficult.

That being said, the state cannot say to one group that their choice of person is morally worthy while the other group's is not.
Click to expand...

Why not, you do it and use the state to implement.

It is about equality under the law and impartiality of the state.
Click to expand...

We the People though....are that State....you seem to keep misunderstanding that.
 
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
The states' rights folks shot themselves in the foot by supporting DOMA.
Click to expand...

Why? It now permits states to not recognize other state's approvals of same sex marriage.

Many states took an entirely different avenue and just rewrote their state constitutions, CR, this makes this shot in the foot argument hard to make. It is also states rights people that would like an attempt for a Constitutional Amendment. An attempt would be adequate, We the People then having an opportunity to speak. Many may not agree as their states already prohibit ssm. Many may not agree as they've passed ssm. The Constitutional measure proposed, the bar set in stone, let's see what the people think and move on.
 
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
So?! Don't forget, we the people are subject to the federal constitution first, state constitution second.
Click to expand...

And why I support a federal amendment, but for now, I'll stick with the 10th amendment.
 
Charles Martel said:
Why? It now permits states to not recognize other state's approvals of same sex marriage.

Many states took an entirely different avenue and just rewrote their state constitutions, CR, this makes this shot in the foot argument hard to make. It is also states rights people that would like an attempt for a Constitutional Amendment. An attempt would be adequate, We the People then having an opportunity to speak. Many may not agree as their states already prohibit ssm. Many may not agree as they've passed ssm. The Constitutional measure proposed, the bar set in stone, let's see what the people think and move on.
Click to expand...

Because federal benefits are in play; marriage is a federal issue, not a state issue.
 
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
That's rather obvious. What's your point?
Click to expand...

That it's not those that oppose ssm that must learn to live with the law. Many observers here calling for the 14th amendment to apply, the DOMA must be their first target....won't you agree?
 
Charles Martel said:
That it's not those that oppose ssm that must learn to live with the law. Many observers here calling for the 14th amendment to apply, the DOMA must be their first target....won't you agree?
Click to expand...

It was the law in California and Maine that same sex marriage was allowed. How did those who oppose same sex marriage live with the law? It's the law in 5 other states, how are the opponents of same sex marriage living with the law in those states? Don't tell people to live with the law while you are doing everything in your power to change the law. It's patronizing to say the least. You are insinuating that same sex marriage supporters do not live with the law and that opponents do, when the reality is nobody is really happy with the situation we have at present.


How dare you insinuate that same sex marriage supporters must limit themselves to one front while opponents are free to fight on the state and federal level. Oh how convenient for you if gay rights advocates get DOMA overturned just as same sex marriage opponents have same sex marriage overturned in every state. Nobody here is that stupid.
 
Last edited:
Charles Martel said:
That it's not those that oppose ssm that must learn to live with the law. Many observers here calling for the 14th amendment to apply, the DOMA must be their first target....won't you agree?
Click to expand...

You don't want to go there, it's a hypocritical stance. CriticalThought's reply was well said.
 
CriticalThought said:
It was the law in California and Maine that same sex marriage was allowed. How did those who oppose same sex marriage live with the law? It's the law in 5 other states, how are the opponents of same sex marriage living with the law in those states? Don't tell people to live with the law while you are doing everything in your power to change the law. It's patronizing to say the least. You are insinuating that same sex marriage supporters do not live with the law and that opponents do, when the reality is nobody is really happy with the situation we have at present.


How dare you insinuate that same sex marriage supporters must limit themselves to one front while opponents are free to fight on the state and federal level. Oh how convenient for you if gay rights advocates get DOMA overturned just as same sex marriage opponents have same sex marriage overturned in every state. Nobody here is that stupid.
Click to expand...

Most excellent and very well said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom