• 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

And that was before the people of California rejected gay marriage and now it is in a court case in SF that will probably go to the SCOTUS.......When the people vote my friend your side loses 31-0 and growing..........sorry

Dude, you should have read the article, because this really is getting embarrassing at this point...

The bill signed by the governor also says gay and lesbian couples who were married in other states after Prop 8's passage have the same rights and benefits that California grants domestic partners.

Gov. Schwarzenegger attached the following statement to the same-sex couple law:

"As required by Proposition 8, California will not recognize such couples as 'married.' However, Senate Bill 54 will provide the same legal protections that would otherwise be available to couples that enter into civil unions or domestic partnerships out-of-state. In short, this measure honors the will of the People in enacting Proposition 8 while providing important protections to those unions legally entered into in other states," Schwarzenegger wrote.

They recognize same sex marriages performed in other states as domestic partnerships that have all the same rights as marriage. Under DOMA that is as good as gays can get it even if it is called "marriage".
 
Last edited:
No, that bill was signed long after the referendum. Look, the article says it right there. All you have to do is read it.

Man! How many times can you wrong before you get it?

I am telling you that once gay marriage is defeated in the court case any gays so called married in California will be null and void regardless if they are out of state or not..............second no gay marriage anywhere receives federal benefits.......There is a national Defense of Marriage Act signed by President Clinton that takes care of that.........
 
I am telling you that once gay marriage is defeated in the court case any gays so called married in California will be null and void regardless if they are out of state or not..............second no gay marriage anywhere receives federal benefits.......There is a national Defense of Marriage Act signed by President Clinton that takes care of that.........

:rofl

Good for you Navy.

But for now we can agree that same sex marriage is recognized in 9 states. If Hawaii passes its civil unions bill, I believe that would bring up the total to 10 even though Hawaii would not allow same sex marriage.

Now if DOMA came down, then the total would be only 5 states recognize same sex marriage, because then you are talking about over a 1,000 federal rights that wouldn't be granted in every state.
 
I am telling you that once gay marriage is defeated in the court case any gays so called married in California will be null and void regardless if they are out of state or not..............second no gay marriage anywhere receives federal benefits.......There is a national Defense of Marriage Act signed by President Clinton that takes care of that.........

Yes, but all of that doesn't change the fact that you were completely wrong previously.
 
Can't do it, can you? Come on, try it! Here, I'll give you a hand:

"You were right. I was wrong."

See? Not that hard to do. Now you try.

Give him a break. He just found out that same sex marriage could be recognized in 20% of the states relatively soon. Given that he takes comfort in the numbers that might be a bit of a shock to the system for him when he previously only thought 10% of the states did. It never occurred to him that defeat of the gay marriage bill in New Jersey only meant that gays were denied the word "marriage", not any of the rights that states can grant to married people.
 
Can't do it, can you? Come on, try it! Here, I'll give you a hand:

"You were right. I was wrong."

See? Not that hard to do. Now you try.

Ouch. Groucho smells blood in the water. :mrgreen:
 
I just re-read through this, and your statement struck me as... well rather obscene. Why call all marriages "Civil unions"? Just because you don't like the term Marriage?

Way to force your view of morality on all.

Has nothing to do with morality. Marriage has always been religious term, now borrowed by the government. What is a "marriage" but a contract between two people that allow each to benefit. A business partnership... at least from a governmental logistical standpoint. The term "civil union" describes this partnership, operationally, very neatly. Marriage can be saved for religious affiliation; a church could choose, or not choose to "marry" anyone, but the federal and state benefits would be given to those who have civil unions, regardless of race, creed, color, religion, sexual orientation, or the sex of the person one wants to be united with.
 
The people don't, and the failure of the Gay Agenda to get "Gay Marriage" to fly anywhere says I'm NOT wrong.

You can keep beating your head against the wall if you want too, but the people, just don't support this drive to alter what Marriage is defined as.

Now, you don't want to go down the appeal to populum logical fallacy route, now do you? Oh... I've seen you've already done that.
 
Has nothing to do with morality. Marriage has always been religious term, now borrowed by the government. What is a "marriage" but a contract between two people that allow each to benefit. A business partnership... at least from a governmental logistical standpoint. The term "civil union" describes this partnership, operationally, very neatly. Marriage can be saved for religious affiliation; a church could choose, or not choose to "marry" anyone, but the federal and state benefits would be given to those who have civil unions, regardless of race, creed, color, religion, sexual orientation, or the sex of the person one wants to be united with.

Marriage is much more then that CC........It is and institution where a child can be assured of stable relationship with a mother and father.......With 2 gay people or 2 mothers and 1 father or vice versa or 3 mothers or 3 fathers that can not be guarenteed...
 
Marriage is much more then that CC........It is and institution where a child can be assured of stable relationship with a mother and father.......With 2 gay people or 2 mothers and 1 father or vice versa or 3 mothers or 3 fathers that can not be guarenteed...

Wow, it is nice to know that you can guarantee that a child being raised by a mother and father will never be abused, molested, neglected, or abandoned by their parents.

Do you ever get tired of being wrong?
 
Marriage is much more then that CC........It is and institution where a child can be assured of stable relationship with a mother and father.......With 2 gay people or 2 mothers and 1 father or vice versa or 3 mothers or 3 fathers that can not be guarenteed...

NP, I have already demonstrated clearly in several threads over the past few years that your statement is not true. Children reared in gay households do as well as in straight households. We've had the argument before. And since I see the importance of a stable household for children as being paramount, that is the biggest reason that I support GM.
 
Has nothing to do with morality. Marriage has always been religious term, now borrowed by the government. What is a "marriage" but a contract between two people that allow each to benefit. A business partnership... at least from a governmental logistical standpoint. The term "civil union" describes this partnership, operationally, very neatly. Marriage can be saved for religious affiliation; a church could choose, or not choose to "marry" anyone, but the federal and state benefits would be given to those who have civil unions, regardless of race, creed, color, religion, sexual orientation, or the sex of the person one wants to be united with.

Why stop at 2 people? That's next ya know. Polygamist are just DYING for a court case they can use to expand "marriage" to include however many people want to enter into one.

I can use any of your arguments FOR gay civil unions to include polygamy.
 
Wow, it is nice to know that you can guarantee that a child being raised by a mother and father will never be abused, molested, neglected, or abandoned by their parents.

Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

I can't do that but I know if I was a child I would rather have a mother and father instead of two fathers one pretending to be my mother or vice versa with 2 mothers, one pretending to be my father......Both a father and mother have distinct roles in a marriage with certain responsibilities which can not be substituted...........
 
NP, I have already demonstrated clearly in several threads over the past few years that your statement is not true. Children reared in gay households do as well as in straight households. We've had the argument before. And since I see the importance of a stable household for children as being paramount, that is the biggest reason that I support GM.

CC you can't convince me that 2 fathers are better then a mother and a father......like I just posted if I were a child I would much rather have a mother and a father because they have distinct roles that can not be substituted....I don't care what any study shows.........
 
The people run the country, not the courts, not the politicians.

Which is irrelevant to my comment. Just because a majority of people vote for something, doesn't mean it's "good" or "right". That's the logical fallacy of yours I was pointing out.
 
Why stop at 2 people? That's next ya know. Polygamist are just DYING for a court case they can use to expand "marriage" to include however many people want to enter into one.

I can use any of your arguments FOR gay civil unions to include polygamy.

And I can defeat them without breaking a sweat. The government has no reason to sanction polygamy because it has not been shown to benefit the individual, the rearing of children, society, or the state. Gay unions have.

Gee, that was easy.
 
I can't do that but I know if I was a child I would rather have a mother and father instead of two fathers one pretending to be my mother or vice versa with 2 mothers, one pretending to be my father.....

If I were a child, I would just want a stable home with two loving parents regardless of their gender.

.Both a father and mother have distinct roles in a marriage with certain responsibilities which can not be substituted...........

I had a whole thread dedicated to allowing people to explain specifically what those responsibilities were and not a single person was able to do so. Can you do it? If not, then I think argument is simply a load of bull.
 
CC you can't convince me that 2 fathers are better then a mother and a father......like I just posted if I were a child I would much rather have a mother and a father because they have distinct roles that can not be substituted....I don't care what any study shows.........

And you cannot convince me that I'm wrong. You can believe what you want, NP. I go with research, and my own observations.
 
And I can defeat them without breaking a sweat. The government has no reason to sanction polygamy because it has not been shown to benefit the individual, the rearing of children, society, or the state. Gay unions have.

Gee, that was easy.

If gay marriage benefits society why wouldn't polygamy?:confused:
 
If gay marriage benefits society why wouldn't polygamy?:confused:

NP, I've posted this before. I have to get back to work, so I'll dig out the post and repost it later. It might be much later, because my "files" are at home, not at work. ;)
 
And you cannot convince me that I'm wrong. You can believe what you want, NP. I go with research, and my own observations.

Tell me CC if you had a choice when you were born would you not had a mother and father then 2 fathers? A mother has things she brings to the table that a father can not and vice versa..........
 
And you cannot convince me that I'm wrong. You can believe what you want, NP. I go with research, and my own observations.

I know you do and I go by how I feel............If it was the only way I could live then I would say 2 parents of the same sex is OK but if I could choose I would always choose the traditional parents, a mother and a father..........
 
Back
Top Bottom