• 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!

Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

Navy Pride said:
Its and undenialable fact of life my left wing friend. There are millions of 2 sex families raising their children the right way. I pity a child who is being raised by 2 men. Imagine the confusion in his life and the embarrasssment when his friends find out........
Click to expand...


LMAO look at this "fear tactic" there would be no confusion at all if they did their jobs as parents.
also there be no embarrassment by his "friends" if they used it against him they arent is friends, this is just common sense.

This reminds me of the nutballs that never want their children to experience REAL life, in thos no touch schools and schools where everybody is a winner and nobody loses its all pass/fail no grades. LOL

Kids are kids and kids without the proper upbringing will make fun of others for being tall, short, skinny, fat, hair color, hair style, wealthy, one parent, being raised by grand parents, having subjectively ugly parents etc etc etc

its all BS and appeals to emotion that dont make sense in the real world. lol
 
Wake said:
And that is baseless.
Click to expand...

not saying you are right or wrong but it has equally as much base as the same subject that Navy Pride originally claimed.
 
Objective-J said:
not saying you are right or wrong but it has equally as much base as the same subject that Navy Pride originally claimed.
Click to expand...

Navy Pride's statement is biased, as well as the biased statements pointed at him. However, the statements against the person alon, NP, is baseless because people really don't know him. NP's beliefs should be refutred with evidence, if any.
 
Wake said:
And that is baseless.
Click to expand...

It has considerably greater base than what he was arguing.

I know his education level, how informed he is, and how honest he is from simply reading his posts. By contrast, he knows jack about same sex parents.
 
Last edited:
Wake said:
Navy Pride's statement is biased, as well as the biased statements pointed at him. However, the statements against the person alon, NP, is baseless because people really don't know him. NP's beliefs should be refutred with evidence, if any.
Click to expand...

Wake, Navy's statements aren't simply biased, they are completely made up. And anyone with half a brain would know that.

It's the equivalent of saying.

WAKE IS A RAPIST!

Refute that with evidence...

Of course that statement is wildly outlandish and I have no basis for it whatsoever.

And neither has he for 95% of what he says on the subject of homosexuality or gay marriage.

And we know that well because some of us have seen him talk about this subject for years.

The "objectivity" you're trying to have right now is really idiotic.
 
CriticalThought said:
It has considerably greater base than what he was arguing.

I know his education level, how informed he is, and how honest he is from simply reading his posts. By contrast, he knows jack about same sex parents.
Click to expand...

There is no need to attack him personally. That's my point.

Jetboogieman said:
Wake, Navy's statements aren't simply biased, they are completely made up. And anyone with half a brain would know that.

It's the equivalent of saying.

WAKE IS A RAPIST!

Refute that with evidence...

Of course that statement is wildly outlandish and I have no basis for it whatsoever.

And neither has he for 95% of what he says on the subject of homosexuality or gay marriage.

And we know that well because some of us have seen him talk about this subject for years.

The "objectivity" you're trying to have right now is really idiotic.
Click to expand...

Then utterly destroy his pov with logic and reason. Don't attack him personally by saying this/that. There's nothing idiotic about that.

NP should elaborate/provide evidence for his pov. When he does, refute it. If he claims that homosexuals are bad parents, don't then say he's a bad parent. Instead, either after he's explained his pov or not, detroy it with logic and evidence.

I guess you can say it's getting a little old how 10+ members start dog-piling/attacking one member, when logic'll do better.

[For the record, I think a child should have one mom and one dad, but I don't think that homosexuals make bad parents.]
 
Wake said:
There is no need to attack him personally. That's my point.
Click to expand...

If you have concerns about personal attacks let the mods deal with it.



NP should elaborate/provide evidence for his pov. When he does, refute it. If he claims that homosexuals are bad parents, don't then say he's a bad parent. Instead, either after he's explained his pov or not, detroy it with logic and evidence.

I guess you can say it's getting a little old how 10+ members start dog-piling/attacking one member, when logic'll do better.
Click to expand...

YOU DON'T SEEM TO BE GETTING THE MESSAGE.

Wake... we have talked about this subject with NavyPride for years, evidence, facts have been provided for him on this subject that could fill the library of congress and he refuses to acknowledge it at all. It's like how the Long form birth certificate didn't stop Orly Taitz from continuing her birther rampage.

NavyPride isn't a bad person, and if there are personal attacks the mods will deal with it. But he's just really old school, brought up in a different time with a different outlook. He will likely never come to accept homosexuality in any form whatsoever. He's made that pretty clear.

You're not looking like an objective person in this case Wake. Pick your battles better.
 
Wake said:
Navy Pride's statement is biased, as well as the biased statements pointed at him. However, the statements against the person alon, NP, is baseless because people really don't know him. NP's beliefs should be refutred with evidence, if any.
Click to expand...


Yet at worse they still have equal base at best the comments against him have MORE.
 
Jetboogieman said:
If you have concerns about personal attacks let the mods deal with it.





YOU DON'T SEEM TO BE GETTING THE MESSAGE.

Wake... we have talked about this subject with NavyPride for years, evidence, facts have been provided for him on this subject that could fill the library of congress and he refuses to acknowledge it at all. It's like how the Long form birth certificate didn't stop Orly Taitz from continuing her birther rampage.

NavyPride isn't a bad person, and if there are personal attacks the mods will deal with it. But he's just really old school, brought up in a different time with a different outlook. He will likely never come to accept homosexuality in any form whatsoever. He's made that pretty clear.

You're not looking like an objective person in this case Wake. Pick your battles better.
Click to expand...

These aren't battles. While he's opinionated, I don't like seeing him get personally attacked.

Though, your points, besides the "pick your battles/don't seem to get the message[though I perfectly understand it]," I understand.

Objective-J said:
Yet at worse they still have equal base at best the comments against him have MORE.
Click to expand...

I don't see how they have more base against him. He seems to think homosexuals don't make good parents. That doesn't mean his child would be embarrassed and confused about him. Obviously your beliefs differ, so refute his claim [beat this dead horse even deader] with logic.
 
Wake said:
These aren't battles. While he's opinionated, I don't like seeing him get personally attacked.

Though, your points, besides the "pick your battles/don't seem to get the message[though I perfectly understand it]," I understand.



I don't see how they have more base against him. He seems to think homosexuals don't make good parents. That doesn't mean his child would be embarrassed and confused about him. Obviously your beliefs differ, so refute his claim [beat this dead horse even deader] with logic.
Click to expand...

Well it's you asking us so the answer is no.
 
Wake said:
I don't see how they have more base against him. He seems to think homosexuals don't make good parents. That doesn't mean his child would be embarrassed and confused about him. Obviously your beliefs differ, so refute his claim [beat this dead horse even deader] with logic.
Click to expand...


I didnt say they CURRENTLY do I said at best they COULD.
It has already been proved over and over again that 2 guardians are equally as good for a child whether they are man/man, woman/woman, man/woman as long as they are caring loving parents. THis is what everyone has been talking about, 2 loving caring parents period.

This is a simple fact. Him arguing against it is stupidity.


Now with that said.

NP COULD equally be the same type of parent but what COULD be questioned is his ability to do so since he lies, shows his ignorance, intolerance, bigotry and refuses to accept known facts and logic. Hence leading anybody logical to assume his intellect MIGHT be less than avg. and could impact his ablity to be loving and caring.

Now even IF all this was found to be true, he COULD still be a good parent. BUT logically the avenue to travel down and theorize that he MIGHT not be is paved with very logical possibilities. On the other side the avenue he tries to lead us down is a dead end and supported with nothing.

SO like I said at worse they are equal at best the comment against him is more likely.
 
Last edited:
Objective-J said:
simple question, who's definition of marriage are YOU using?
Click to expand...
"Whose" is an irrelevant question.

There is one and only one accurate definition of marriage.

Naturally, that's the definition I used.


Objective-J said:
and whos definition will the courts use?
Click to expand...
Again, "whose" is irrelevant.

If judges have succumbed to sufficient brainwashing, they could use an erroneous definition of marriage.

Hopefully they won't.


Objective-J said:
I think you erroneously think your OPINION of that definition is the only/right one. :shrug:
Click to expand...
It is understandable that you think that:
Ontologuy said:
That is why, sometime in the late 1960s/early 1970s, gay leaders began bombarding the media with oxymoronic (and thus intrinsically false) phrases like "SSM", "same sex marriage", "gay marriage", and the like. The purpose of doing so was to effect a form of mind-control such that after a couple of generations a greater segment of the population would not only be more comfortable hearing these oxymoronic statements, but that a sufficient number of people would actually erroneously think that "marriage" means other than in addition to "a man and a woman as husband and wife".
Click to expand...

:cool:
 
Ontologuy said:
"Whose" is an irrelevant question.

There is one and only one accurate definition of marriage.

Naturally, that's the definition I used.



Again, "whose" is irrelevant.

If judges have succumbed to sufficient brainwashing, they could use an erroneous definition of marriage.

Hopefully they won't.



It is understandable that you think that:

:cool:
Click to expand...

LMAO this is EXACTLY what I thought you would do :laughat:

whos is VERY relevant, now instead of dodging the question please man up and answer.

who's is EVERYTHING and your own answer will shoot huge holes in you post. Its probably why you choose not to answer. :shrug: either way doesnt matter to me the fact is your original post I quoted is currently erroneous
 
Objective-J said:
LMAO this is EXACTLY what I thought you would do :laughat:

whos is VERY relevant, now instead of dodging the question please man up and answer.

who's is EVERYTHING and your own answer will shoot huge holes in you post. Its probably why you choose not to answer. :shrug: either way doesnt matter to me the fact is your original post I quoted is currently erroneous
Click to expand...
Your question has been answered; there is no other correct answer than this: http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news-mainstream-media/118583-court-ca-gay-marriage-ban-unconstitutional-42.html#post1060195803.

That you think there is another answer, well, that speaks to the answer I gave.
 
Navy Pride said:
I ask you CC did your mother bring anything to the table that a gay man could not bring and I am not talking about a gay man pretending to be a mother.
Click to expand...

What an individual brings to the table is based on that individual. The sex of that individual or sexual orientation of that individual is not relevant. Gender roles, even as parents, are far more interchangeable than they were 50 years ago. So, other than breast feeding, I can't think of anything that a mother could provide that a father... or gay man could not either. And vice versa, too.
 
CriticalThought said:
It has considerably greater base than what he was arguing.

I know his education level, how informed he is, and how honest he is from simply reading his posts. By contrast, he knows jack about same sex parents.
Click to expand...

Moderator's Warning:
The topic is about GM, NOT individual posters. Cease this behavior.
 
Having a vagina or a penis between your legs has nothing to do with how good of a parent you are. The whole notion that kids require opposite sex parents in order to grow into a stable adult is completely ridiculous.
 
Ontologuy said:
Your question has been answered; there is no other correct answer than this: http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news-mainstream-media/118583-court-ca-gay-marriage-ban-unconstitutional-42.html#post1060195803.

That you think there is another answer, well, that speaks to the answer I gave.
Click to expand...


LMAO another dodge, no the fact is you still have not answered the question.

Its a simple question, I have no idea why you find it so hard to answer.

Ill try again, we'll see if you can be honest and answer this time.

Who's definition of marriage are you using?
 
Dr_Patrick said:
Having a vagina or a penis between your legs has nothing to do with how good of a parent you are. The whole notion that kids require opposite sex parents in order to grow into a stable adult is completely ridiculous.
Click to expand...
And, of course, completely irrelevant to Prop 8.

Prop 8 is about marriage, not parenthood. Prop 8 seeks to reiterate for CA government administrators that there is one and only one set of proper recipients of a marriage license: a man and a woman as husband and wife.

One does not have to be married to be a parent, and I would imagine a gay couple could make just as good a parents as a straight couple.

Your question stimulates a new thought for me, though.

Does a straight couple who are parents make better parents for straight kids than gay kids .. and do a gay couple who are parents make better parents for gay kids than straight kids?

Much about good parenting is being an effective good role model of adult romantic behavior.

When it comes to such role modeling, that's about a whole lot more than just the form of going through the motions -- it's about the substance of such, and that includes who and what the parents are.

A straight couple can model well romantically their roles, but their gay kid may end up a bit substantively confused, as by both physiological and psychological nature, there are significant substantive differences exemplified in romantic relating and roles in straight couples compared to either type of gay couples.

Not that there is anything that can or should be "done" in recognition of this .. but the thought just struck me and I decided to post it.
 
Ontologuy said:
And, of course, completely irrelevant to Prop 8.

Prop 8 is about marriage, not parenthood.
Click to expand...

I was responding to Navy's notion that gay parents are incapable of raising a stable child.
 
Ontologuy said:
And, of course, completely irrelevant to Prop 8
Click to expand...

The defense for Prop 8 was that designating marriage for heterosexual cuoples was for the purpose of promoting procreation and optimal parenting.
 
CriticalThought said:
The defense for Prop 8 was that designating marriage for heterosexual cuoples was for the purpose of promoting procreation and optimal parenting.
Click to expand...
That defense of Prop 8 is not what Prop 8 is about.

Prop 8 is simply about reiterating to CA administrators that there is one and only one proper set of recipients for a marriage licence: a man and a woman as husband and wife.

That precise defense you present did not occur, but a very similar defense was forced upon those stepping up to defend Prop 8 when the loathesome AG, Jerry Brown, who had already said he would defend against whatever challenge was made to whatever result occurred in the vote, then egregiously reneged once the electorate didn't vote his way.

Judicial protocol would have allowed the AG to defend with appeal to the one and only definition of marriage: between a man and a woman as husband and wife.

But for some strange rule of legal protocol, the originators of Prop 8, by virtue of who they were and who they weren't in the eyes of the judicial system, were not allowed to begin argument in defense of Prop 8 on definitive face value -- the reasonable and customary subject applicability test -- but were ludicrously forced by this really absurd judicial protocol to go right to the legitimate state interest test.

Of course, the best they could then come up with was flimsy at best, as it never should have gotten that far, because the more foundational reasonable and customary subject applicability test -- to which the AG would have been allowed to appeal and to which any defenders should really have been allowed to appeal -- would have ended the case with understandable confirmation of Prop 8 without ever having to move on to the next-phase legitimate state interest test.

That a combination of Jerry Brown's horrific lack of integrity and this strange legal protocol is basically subverting justice in the case is sad .. but par for the course in liberal land CA.
 
Dr_Patrick said:
Having a vagina or a penis between your legs has nothing to do with how good of a parent you are. The whole notion that kids require opposite sex parents in order to grow into a stable adult is completely ridiculous.
Click to expand...

At the very least a mother nurtures a child. a man no matter how hard he trys can not do that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom