• 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

Actually, most people do. You should probably come up with statistics before you start down a Charlie Martel trip, too.
Click to expand...

There are nearly 93 million unmarried Americans over age 18, representing roughly 42% of the adult population. - U.S. Census Bureau. “America’s Families and Living Arrangements: 2007.”
Click to expand...

There are more than 56 million American adults who have always been single, representing roughly 60% of the adult unmarried population. - U.S. Census Bureau. “America’s Families and Living Arrangements: 2007.”
Click to expand...

50% percent of first marriages, 67% of second and 74% of third marriages end in divorce, according to Jennifer Baker of the Forest Institute of Professional Psychology in Springfield, Missouri.”
Click to expand...

Lets do some math here... Of the 58% who are married, half of them will end in divorce, leaving 29% of married couples who have chosen a life long partner.

Of the 42% that are unmarried, 40% of them are already divorced, and of the remaining 25%, at least 20% will remain unmarried. The remaining 20% of the population will marry at some point, but half of them will get divorced, so the percent of people who choose a life long partner and stick with them will increase from 29% to 39%, still well below the 50%.

Even if we were to suppose that the entire 5% of the population who remains unmarried were in life long gay domestic partnerships, it would only bring the number up to 44%.

In conclusion, when it comes to a "natural tendency" for choosing lifelong partnerships, people FAIL. Humans are not a creature that mates for life in most cases. We like to mate for a few years, then get bored an move on.
 
Panache said:
Lets do some math here... Of the 58% who are married, half of them will end in divorce, leaving 29% of married couples who have chosen a life long partner.

Of the 42% that are unmarried, 40% of them are already divorced, and of the remaining 25%, at least 20% will remain unmarried. The remaining 20% of the population will marry at some point, but half of them will get divorced, so the percent of people who choose a life long partner and stick with them will increase from 29% to 39%, still well below the 50%.

Even if we were to suppose that the entire 5% of the population who remains unmarried were in life long gay domestic partnerships, it would only bring the number up to 44%.

In conclusion, when it comes to a "natural tendency" for choosing lifelong partnerships, people FAIL. Humans are not a creature that mates for life in most cases. We like to mate for a few years, then get bored an move on.
Click to expand...

That in no way negates the expectation that most human beings have of partnering for life. It also doesn't take into account those partnered for life that simply have chosen not to get married.

That's just a raw statistic concerning who is currently partnered AND already married.

A 58% divorce rate also does not take into account that most of those will remarry. Your exercise in spinning statistics has failed.
 
That in no way negates the expectation that most human beings have of partnering for life.
Click to expand...

You moving the goal post on me? I said that most people don't choose a partner for life, I never said most people didn't delude themselves.

It also doesn't take into account those partnered for life that simply have chosen not to get married.
Click to expand...

You are sooooo mistaken here. I have assumed that the ENTIRE 5% of the population that have chosen not to get married are in lifelong partnerships:

Even if we were to suppose that the entire 5% of the population who remains unmarried were in life long gay domestic partnerships, it would only bring the number up to 44%.
Click to expand...

That's just a raw statistic concerning who is currently partnered AND already married.
Click to expand...

You asserted that most people are partnered to one person for life, and asked me for statistics. I provided them. If you would like to present statistics to back your own assertion, no one is stopping you.

A 58% divorce rate also does not take into account that most of those will remarry.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter to me how many temporary arrangements they enter into. People who don't stay with their professed "life partner" for life, are clearly lacking this "natural tendency" of which you speak.

Your exercise in spinning statistics has failed.
Click to expand...

Its ok that you were wrong. It's no reflection on you as a person.
 
Panache said:
You moving the goal post on me? I said that most people don't choose a partner for life, I never said most people didn't delude themselves.
Click to expand...

No, I said that there is a natural tendancy to partner for life and that the State makes concessions for that.

You are sooooo mistaken here. I have assumed that the ENTIRE 5% of the population that have chosen not to get married are in lifelong partnerships:
Click to expand...

No, you assumed gay partnerships in that 5%. You never made any accounting for the straight couples that are partnered and never married. You simply misunderstood what I was saying.



You asserted that most people are partnered to one person for life, and asked me for statistics. I provided them. If you would like to present statistics to back your own assertion, no one is stopping you.



It doesn't matter to me how many temporary arrangements they enter into. People who don't stay with their professed "life partner" for life, are clearly lacking this "natural tendency" of which you speak.
Click to expand...

Statistics concerning failed attempts at partnering for life does not negate the tendancy human beings have to pursue life partnerships. Your statistics did nothing to diminish my point concerning the purpose of the marriage contract as it is instituted in our society. Now if you showed statistics indicating that a majority of people show no desire or tendancy toward pursuing lifelong partnerships, you may have had a point.

The marriage contract makes an assertion of "for life". That so many people enter this contract with an assumption of "for life" only bolsters the assertion I made that human beings have a natural tendancy to partner for life, or for the sake of your tender sensibilities let's just say a natural desire to partner for life.

Its ok that you were wrong. It's no reflection on you as a person.
Click to expand...

And it's ok that you failed to disprove my assertion or actually prove me to be wrong. It's no reflection on you as a person just on your ability to debate with relevance.
 
Panache said:
In conclusion, when it comes to a "natural tendency" for choosing lifelong partnerships, people FAIL. Humans are not a creature that mates for life in most cases. We like to mate for a few years, then get bored an move on.
Click to expand...

But everyone should have the right to a lifelong partnership
 
phildozer9121 said:
But everyone should have the right to a lifelong partnership
Click to expand...

And more importantly, life long partnerships failing is not an indicator of whether life long partnerships are a natural tendancy for human beings to pursue.

Check this out from Chemistry.com's statistics and survey polling.

In reading through the various questions, overwhelmingly the polls show that lifelong commitment is the pursuit of most adults when it comes to their relationships.

Anyone who debates otherwise is just baiting to move the debate to an irrelevant quagmire. :shrug:

It is of note though that whether it is "natural" or not is also irrelevant to determining whether it is right or wrong. Appeal to nature is still a fallacy.
 
Last edited:
No, I said that there is a natural tendancy to partner for life and that the State makes concessions for that.
Click to expand...

And I said I thought that was funny, because most people don't partner for life, and you said that actually most people do. You have yet to back that up.

No, you assumed gay partnerships in that 5%. You never made any accounting for the straight couples that are partnered and never married. You simply misunderstood what I was saying.
Click to expand...

What you are saying doesn't make any sense. Of the US population, there is about 5% that never get married. I have assumed (and it is a very generous assumption) that the entire 5% that don't get married are in lifelong partnerships. What does it matter whether they are gay or straight? If you like, we could suppose that 2% of the population are gays in lifelong relationships who choose never to get married, and that 3% are straights in lifelong relationships who choose not to get married. Or we could suppose that 1% are gay lifelong partners and 4% are straight lifelong partners.

It doesn't affect the conclusion at all. We are assuming that the entire demographic of people who choose never to marry are in lifelong relationships, regardless of their orientation.

Statistics concerning failed attempts at partnering for life does not negate the tendancy human beings have to pursue life partnerships. Your statistics did nothing to diminish my point concerning the purpose of the marriage contract as it is instituted in our society. Now if you showed statistics indicating that a majority of people show no desire or tendancy toward pursuing lifelong partnerships, you may have had a point.
Click to expand...

Maybe you could point out where you used the word "pursue" in your original post.

The marriage contract makes an assertion of "for life". That so many people enter this contract with an assumption of "for life" only bolsters the assertion I made that human beings have a natural tendancy to partner for life, or for the sake of your tender sensibilities let's just say a natural desire to partner for life.
Click to expand...

I only said that most people don't partner for life. I think most people have a natural desire to own a Ducati. The Government should make concessions for that.

And it's ok that you failed to disprove my assertion or actually prove me to be wrong. It's no reflection on you as a person just on your ability to debate with relevance.
Click to expand...

I was quite successful in disproving your assertion. That is why you had to amend your assertion. I accept your amended assertion that people have a desire to partner for life.

Carry on.
 
Panache said:
And I said I thought that was funny, because most people don't partner for life, and you said that actually most people do. You have yet to back that up.


What you are saying doesn't make any sense. Of the US population, there is about 5% that never get married. I have assumed (and it is a very generous assumption) that the entire 5% that don't get married are in lifelong partnerships. What does it matter whether they are gay or straight? If you like, we could suppose that 2% of the population are gays in lifelong relationships who choose never to get married, and that 3% are straights in lifelong relationships who choose not to get married. Or we could suppose that 1% are gay lifelong partners and 4% are straight lifelong partners.

It doesn't affect the conclusion at all. We are assuming that the entire demographic of people who choose never to marry are in lifelong relationships, regardless of their orientation.



Maybe you could point out where you used the word "pursue" in your original post.



I only said that most people don't partner for life. I think most people have a natural desire to own a Ducati. The Government should make concessions for that.



I was quite successful in disproving your assertion. That is why you had to amend your assertion. I accept your amended assertion that people have a desire to partner for life.

Carry on.
Click to expand...

And none of that disproves that it is a natural tendancy for human beings to enter into lifelong partnership. Attempting and failing does not negate the tendancy toward the pursuit.

My assertion has not been amended at all and I stand by it until such a time as you can successfully disprove it.

Carry on. :roll:
 
And more importantly, life long partnerships failing is not an indicator of whether life long partnerships are a natural tendancy for human beings to pursue.
Click to expand...

It is however an indicator of whether people actually choose to engage in lifelong partnerships.

Here is the original quote copied and pasted from your post. If the word "pursue" is in there, feel free to point it out.

Given the natural tendancy of the human being to choose life-long mates
Click to expand...
 
Panache said:
It is however an indicator of whether people actually choose to engage in lifelong partnerships.

Here is the original quote copied and pasted from your post. If the word "pursue" is in there, feel free to point it out.
Click to expand...

And nothing you have stated disproves that this is a choice for human beings. They choose lifelong mates. Whether they succeed or not in maintaining those relationships for life is another matter entirely.

You are simply attempting semantic somersaults to create a separate point to argue for the convenience of arguing something you can actually win.

At least you didn't sink as far as Charlie and truncate quotes and merge them with others to create a whole new sentence.
 
jallman said:
Appeal to nature is still a fallacy.
Click to expand...

Fallacy unless YOU appeal to it, huh? Marriage is according to Jallman....given the natural tendancy of the human being to choose life-long mates....

You're a total contradiction. You can't stay consistent, j, what an absolute and utter joke you are!:rofl
 
Last edited:
Charles Martel said:
Marriage is....given the natural tendancy of the human being to choose life-long mates....

You're a total contradiction. You can't stay consistent, j, what an absolute and utter joke you are!:rofl
Click to expand...

And you're still a dumbass that is truncating posts.

I never made an appeal to nature argument in the first place. I stated what the reasoning of the State was. You can't comprehend plain english so I don't advise you attempting to hurt yourself trying to comprehend the subtle nuance of logical fallacies.
 
Charles Martel said:
Marriage is....given the natural tendancy of the human being to choose life-long mates....

You're a total contradiction. You can't stay consistent, j, what an absolute and utter joke you are!:rofl
Click to expand...

Human nature is too versatile to claim in its our nature to choose life long mates.

Even if that was true, marriage is a not a synonym for life ling mates.
 
And none of that disproves that it is a natural tendancy for human beings to enter into lifelong partnership. Attempting and failing does not negate the tendancy toward the pursuit.
Click to expand...

So you think that a natural tendency to pursue wealth equates to a natural tendency to be wealthy? Or that a natural tendency to pursue happiness equates to a natural tendency to be happy? You have some odd thoughts.
 
Panache said:
So you think that a natural tendency to pursue wealth equates to a natural tendency to be wealthy? Or that a natural tendency to pursue happiness equates to a natural tendency to be happy? You have some odd thoughts.
Click to expand...

No. And that's not what I said about choosing lifelong mates, either. We do have a natural tendancy to choose wealth. We have a natural tendancy to choose lifelong mates.

Whether we are successful in realizing our choices is a completely separate matter.

You simply have some odd comprehension problems.
 
I also think that someone needs to identify what a "life-long partner" means. Seems to me that some folks are identifying this in a quantitative way. I think it is more of a qualitative thing. For example, if someone is married to someone for 30 years, more of a marriage of convenience than anything else, both get divorced, and one marries someone they truly love and want to spend the rest of their life with... and a year later they die in a car accident, which of their partners was their "life-long partner"? I would say the latter, not the former.

Time is not nearly as relevant to this issue as quality is. The search for this can continue even after the appearance that it has been found.
 
Last edited:
jallman said:
Oh my...don't confuse him with subtle differences in language. He's already having a hard time as it is.:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Look to MG's second sentence, J.....isn't MG taking your argument on?

Your reading comprehension like you consistency....non-existent.
 
Charles Martel said:
Look to MG's second sentence, J.....isn't MG taking your argument on?

Your reading comprehension like you consistency....non-existent.
Click to expand...

I never made any assertion as to whether MG agreed with me or you. Only that there was the risk of confusing you with subtleties.

Reading comprehension is just not your friend.:lol:
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I also think that someone needs to identify what a "life-long partner" means. Seems to me that some folks are identifying this in a quantitative way. I think it is more of a qualitative thing. For example, if someone is married to someone for 30 years, more of a marriage of convenience than anything else, both get divorced, and one marries someone they truly love and want to spend the rest of their life with... and a year later they die in a car accident, which of their partners was their "life-long partner"? I would say the latter, not the former.

Time is not nearly as relevant to this issue as quality is. The search for this can continue even after the appearance that it has been found.
Click to expand...

I would be willing to amend my statement on those grounds. The end result is still the same...human beings have a natural tendancy to partner with an expectation and desire for permanence.
 
A note:

Appeals to nature are fallacies because nature theoretically encompasses the totality of human existence. Rape and murder are natural behaviors, for instance. We can't legitimize them simply by recognizing this naturalness.

Appeal to tradition (aka, tendencies) are fallacies because traditions may be based on mistaken beliefs.

Something may be morally right, and also natural and a traditional, but its naturalness and tradition are incidental qualities so far as the ethics of the matter is concerned.
 
1)I never made an appeal to nature argument in the first place.
2)Marriage is, 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

:rofl:spin::2wave::doh:cool:
 
Charles Martel said:
You're now looking like a 4th grader. Lying and crying.

:boohoo:
Click to expand...

Please show me where I actually made an appeal to nature as my argument.

And this go around, please try to do so without liberally editing the posts you use as reference. kthanx!!!:2wave:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom