• 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!

Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

Maybe more than two rulings. Two from Alito fore sure tho.
 
Section 4 of Voting Rights Act unconstitutional.
 
No ruling on SSM today.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Homosexual acts and homosexuality are two different things. You do know the difference between orientation and behavior, correct?
Click to expand...

I know there is no proof of a propensity for homosexual orientation, although many with SSM ideologies, swear it's so.

I sat in on a class in college (in which I was eventually kicked out) because a speech teacher teaching a CORE class in my major (not speech) told everyone in class there was scientific proof of the propensity of homosexual orientation. Supposedly, some ideological 'scientists' autopsied the brains of aborted fetuses and discovered a chemical on the brains of some fetuses. This was scientific proof of the propensity of homosexual behavior. I asked the college professor if the scientists shoved the fetus back into their birth canal and waited the remaining gestation period, and longer, to determine the sexual orientation. I was kicked out of class.
 
cabse5 said:
I know there is no proof of a propensity for homosexual orientation, although many with SSM ideologies, swear it's so.

I sat in on a class in college (in which I was eventually kicked out) because a speech teacher teaching a CORE class in my major (not speech) told everyone in class there was scientific proof of the propensity of homosexual orientation. Supposedly, some ideological 'scientists' autopsied the brains of aborted fetuses and discovered a chemical on the brains of some fetuses. This was scientific proof of the propensity of homosexual behavior. I asked the college professor if the scientists shoved the fetus back into their birth canal and waited the remaining gestation period, and longer, to determine the sexual orientation. I was kicked out of class.
Click to expand...


There is no known method for determining the sexual orientation of anyone other than their own words, coupled with their own behaviors.

Tim-
 
QUOTE=tererun;1061969540]... I am not holding my breath they will do it, but i am wondering what the hell is up with them delaying this announcement by another weak. News outlets are having a hell of a time recycling their speculations over and over again.[/QUOTE]

Another of SSM advocate's talking points is that church goers can easily practice their religion even if SSM is legal. I don't know if you've followed my postings on the SSM debate, but that is exactly my argument against SSM. A SS union can have all the rights and responsibilities of marriage. You see, in Oregon, California, Washington, Nevada, and Colorado, legislation has already been passed in those states to give unions all the rights and responsibilties of marriage. A union can adopt. A union can share each other's assets. Tax advantages would problably be a federal bill. Not at all impossible.

There's nothing to prevent a SS couple from having a union that has all the rights and responsibilites of marriage in those states. And the legislation isn't, IMO, at all controversial. IOW, other states will follow suit.

See the disconnect? See the unfairness? One of the reasons SSM advocates give for church goers to accede SSM is that they can practice their religon anyway. I'm saying SS unions can practice their union with all the rights and responsibilites of marriage anyway.
 
Hicup said:
There is no known method for determining the sexual orientation of anyone other than their own words, coupled with their own behaviors.

Tim-
Click to expand...

Sounds psychological.
 
cabse5 said:
QUOTE=tererun;1061969540]... I am not holding my breath they will do it, but i am wondering what the hell is up with them delaying this announcement by another weak. News outlets are having a hell of a time recycling their speculations over and over again.
Click to expand...

Another of SSM advocate's talking points is that church goers can easily practice their religion even if SSM is legal. I don't know if you've followed my postings on the SSM debate, but that is exactly my argument against SSM. A SS union can have all the rights and responsibilities of marriage. You see, in Oregon, California, Washington, Nevada, and Colorado, legislation has already been passed in those states to give unions all the rights and responsibilties of marriage. A union can adopt. A union can share each other's assets. Tax advantages would problably be a federal bill. Not at all impossible.

There's nothing to prevent a SS couple from having a union that has all the rights and responsibilites of marriage in those states. And the legislation isn't, IMO, at all controversial. IOW, other states will follow suit.

See the disconnect? See the unfairness? One of the reasons SSM advocates give for church goers to accede SSM is that they can practice their religon anyway. I'm saying SS unions can practice their union with all the rights and responsibilites of marriage anyway.[/QUOTE]


Blacks could also quench their thirst by drinking out of drinking fountains that were "reserved" for them....they didn't have to drink out of "white only" drinking fountains.

See how ridiculous your argument is?
 
davidtaylorjr said:
You should also know just because you find something in a book, one or two books, doesn't mean it is correct. Hundreds of scholars believe the exact opposite of your links.
Click to expand...

Actually, they don't. Many merely accept the reasoning for not correcting the error. Among actual scholars I mean. I remember one young Amish scholar charged by his church to prove the Bible specifically denounced homosexuality (in an actual book in the 80's). He opened his report with "I don't want anyone mad at me, but going back to the original language, there's really nothing specific."
 
davidtaylorjr said:
You should study the Bible a little more. That was the old Levitical law.
Click to expand...

You should read what Jesus has to say on the subject.

18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 5:18-20
 
Rather nervous, hoping for good news tomorrow.

This may be a political issue for most of you, but this is rather personal for me, crossing my fingers, and saying a few prayers. Hopefully equality will win the day.
 
Your Star said:
Rather nervous, hoping for good news tomorrow.

This may be a political issue for most of you, but this is rather personal for me, crossing my fingers, and saying a few prayers. Hopefully equality will win the day.
Click to expand...

Good luck!
 
cabse5 said:
QUOTE=tererun;1061969540]... I am not holding my breath they will do it, but i am wondering what the hell is up with them delaying this announcement by another weak. News outlets are having a hell of a time recycling their speculations over and over again.
Click to expand...

Another of SSM advocate's talking points is that church goers can easily practice their religion even if SSM is legal. I don't know if you've followed my postings on the SSM debate, but that is exactly my argument against SSM. A SS union can have all the rights and responsibilities of marriage. You see, in Oregon, California, Washington, Nevada, and Colorado, legislation has already been passed in those states to give unions all the rights and responsibilties of marriage. A union can adopt. A union can share each other's assets. Tax advantages would problably be a federal bill. Not at all impossible.

There's nothing to prevent a SS couple from having a union that has all the rights and responsibilites of marriage in those states. And the legislation isn't, IMO, at all controversial. IOW, other states will follow suit.

See the disconnect? See the unfairness? One of the reasons SSM advocates give for church goers to accede SSM is that they can practice their religon anyway. I'm saying SS unions can practice their union with all the rights and responsibilites of marriage anyway.
Click to expand...

SSM isn't about rights. It's about normalizing homosexuality. When offered a civil union with all the rights of marriage, the homosexual community rejected it because they feared accepting civil unions, complete with ALL the rights and privileges of marriage would prevent them from ever getting it called marriage and having it equated to heterosexual lifestyles. I always thought it was peculiar that those who sought alternative lifestyles came to want to mimic the heterosexual lifestyle model. It seems to me that an alternative sanctioned union would be appropriate for an alternative lifestyle.
 
Papa bull said:
SSM isn't about rights. It's about normalizing homosexuality. When offered a civil union with all the rights of marriage, the homosexual community rejected it because they feared accepting civil unions, complete with ALL the rights and privileges of marriage would prevent them from ever getting it called marriage and having it equated to heterosexual lifestyles. I always thought it was peculiar that those who sought alternative lifestyles came to want to mimic the heterosexual lifestyle model. It seems to me that an alternative sanctioned union would be appropriate for an alternative lifestyle.
Click to expand...

It is not an alternative lifestyle, we are just living like everyone else. We are not freaks, we are normal people who do normal things, it's that simple.

And civil unions don't have all the rights and privileges of marriage, that is the problem. That is why we don't accept it.

Also yes, we want to normalize homosexuality, because it has been unfairly marginalized, we are not weird people, we are ordinary citizens that deserve the same rights as everyone else. There is nothing wrong with homosexuality, and I will not be ashamed of promoting that message.
 
I have a solution.

If the right grants liberty to us. We will agree not to take your guns.

If I dint have liberty you wint either.
 
captainawesome said:
I have a solution.

If the right grants liberty to us. We will agree not to take your guns.

If I dint have liberty you wint either.
Click to expand...

Well, since you have utterly failed in taking guns, not exactly a genuine bargain. Now if you said, "Give us gay marriage and we will ban abortion" then you might have some takers.
 
Fisher said:
Well, since you have utterly failed in taking guns, not exactly a genuine bargain. Now if you said, "Give us gay marriage and we will ban abortion" then you might have some takers.
Click to expand...

If you think that guns cant be banned your wrong. They can and will be unless the right wing starts caring more about liberty than forcing their religion on others.

If you take my liberty I will vote to take yours.
 
captainawesome said:
If you think that guns cant be banned your wrong. They can and will be unless the right wing starts caring more about liberty than forcing their religion on others.

If you take my liberty I will vote to take yours.
Click to expand...

Oh I am so so scared--someone om the internet thinks their one vote can accomplish what the President and the Democratic leadership have utterly failed to do and will continue to fail to do until the Constitution is amended.

...and BTW, in case you have not noticed, most of the anti-SSM marriage laws were passed by the public, not evil straight people in a smoke-filled backroom. Nothing like the vote tally to refute the generic polling.
 
Your Star said:
It is not an alternative lifestyle,
Click to expand...
The gay and lesbian lifestyle is not an "alternative".

It is an understandable consequence of the birth defect of homosexuality: http://www.debatepolitics.com/sex-and-sexuality/160480-homosexuality-birth-defect.html#post1061800678


Your Star said:
we are just living like everyone else.
Click to expand...
Yes, coping like every imperfect person we all are does: the best we can.


Your Star said:
We are not freaks,
Click to expand...
No more than those suffering cleft palate, transsexuality, spina bifida, etc. are freaks.

Sadly, however, there are bullies who demean and belittle birth defect sufferers, an egregious behavior.


Your Star said:
we are normal people who do normal things, it's that simple.
Click to expand...
Actually true for the most part, though with one huge exception: homosexual-specific behavior -- that behavior is, most certainly, abnormal with respect to the general population, though not abnormal for homosexuals.

This is because the area of the birth defect of homosexuality is located in the brain, located mostly in the part of the brain responsible for "gender attracted-to" and a little in the part of the brain resposible for "gender identity".


Your Star said:
And civil unions don't have all the rights and privileges of marriage, that is the problem. That is why we don't accept it.
Click to expand...
The truth of the matter is that most states don't have domestic partner civil unions other than marriage, and it takes a lot of effort to encourage and realize the legislative effort to enact such a specifically appropriately named ("homarriage") civil union domestic partnership in each state. That is the real problem.

So the short-cut of hijacking the word "marriage" to oxymoronically attempt a redefinement is being attempted, which accounts for the understandable opposition.


Your Star said:
Also yes, we want to normalize homosexuality,
Click to expand...
That can't be done in the literal sense, as homosexuals are merely roughly 2% of the population (with bisexuals about 6%).

If what you mean by "normalize" is "make the straight public aware and accepting and use to homosexuals", yes that can be done ..

.. But not by attempting to hijack and oxymoronically redefine the word "marriage".

That will only garner you understandable animosity, and never acceptance.


Your Star said:
because it has been unfairly marginalized,
Click to expand...
Yes, this is true, marginalized due to ignorance.

But now that we know that homosexuality is a birth defect, that will go a long way to changing atttitudes toward homosexuals for the better, providing, of course, that homosexuals don't try to steal from heterosexuals what doesn't belong to them.


Your Star said:
we are not weird people,
Click to expand...
Weird is a pretty strong word ..

.. But you're easily observationally different and in a significant and homosexual-like way.

It is the collective difference that causes straight people to notice and withdraw to a degree, especially when straight people are unaware of the birth defect etiology of homosexuality.


Your Star said:
we are ordinary citizens that deserve the same rights as everyone else.
Click to expand...
Yes, absolutely.

But, you don't deserve that to which you are not rightly definitive proprietarily entitled, such as "marriage", as marriage is and always has been since the agricultural revolution more than 12,000 years ago "between a man and a woman as husband and wife", isolated or exceptional violations notwithstanding but powerless to redefine what marriage is.

"Homarriage" and the like is an acceptable name for homosexual domestic partner civil unions, but "marriage", obviously, is not .. no matter what the SCOTUS decides.


Your Star said:
There is nothing wrong with homosexuality,
Click to expand...
It is difficult to argue that a behavior endemic to someone predisposed to that behavior is "wrong", though religions have tried through the ages.

And, a person can have a defect, and, of course, not be a "defective person".

Some people do see birth defects as "wrong", and are actively pursuing preventions to make things "right", so that people no longer have to suffer those birth defects.


Your Star said:
and I will not be ashamed of promoting that message.
Click to expand...
Good for you!

You are doing all who suffer a birth defect a great service thereby, to eliminate the unjustified shame of suffering a birth defect that is simply not your fault.
 
Fisher said:
Oh I am so so scared--someone om the internet thinks their one vote can accomplish what the President and the Democratic leadership have utterly failed to do and will continue to fail to do until the Constitution is amended.

...and BTW, in case you have not noticed, most of the anti-SSM marriage laws were passed by the public, not evil straight people in a smoke-filled backroom. Nothing like the vote tally to refute the generic polling.
Click to expand...

Your silly not my one vote. There will be many voters.

If you dont want liberty for others you will lose yours.
 
Ontologuy said:
The gay and lesbian lifestyle is not an "alternative".

It is an understandable consequence of the birth defect of homosexuality: http://www.debatepolitics.com/sex-and-sexuality/160480-homosexuality-birth-defect.html#post1061800678



Yes, coping like every imperfect person we all are does: the best we can.



No more than those suffering cleft palate, transsexuality, spina bifida, etc. are freaks.

Sadly, however, there are bullies who demean and belittle birth defect sufferers, an egregious behavior.



Actually true for the most part, though with one huge exception: homosexual-specific behavior -- that behavior is, most certainly, abnormal with respect to the general population, though not abnormal for homosexuals.

This is because the area of the birth defect of homosexuality is located in the brain, located mostly in the part of the brain responsible for "gender attracted-to" and a little in the part of the brain resposible for "gender identity".



The truth of the matter is that most states don't have domestic partner civil unions other than marriage, and it takes a lot of effort to encourage and realize the legislative effort to enact such a specifically appropriately named ("homarriage") civil union domestic partnership in each state. That is the real problem.

So the short-cut of hijacking the word "marriage" to oxymoronically attempt a redefinement is being attempted, which accounts for the understandable opposition.



That can't be done in the literal sense, as homosexuals are merely roughly 2% of the population (with bisexuals about 6%).

If what you mean by "normalize" is "make the straight public aware and accepting and use to homosexuals", yes that can be done ..

.. But not by attempting to hijack and oxymoronically redefine the word "marriage".

That will only garner you understandable animosity, and never acceptance.



Yes, this is true, marginalized due to ignorance.

But now that we know that homosexuality is a birth defect, that will go a long way to changing atttitudes toward homosexuals for the better, providing, of course, that homosexuals don't try to steal from heterosexuals what doesn't belong to them.



Weird is a pretty strong word ..

.. But you're easily observationally different and in a significant and homosexual-like way.

It is the collective difference that causes straight people to notice and withdraw to a degree, especially when straight people are unaware of the birth defect etiology of homosexuality.



Yes, absolutely.

But, you don't deserve that to which you are not rightly definitive proprietarily entitled, such as "marriage", as marriage is and always has been since the agricultural revolution more than 12,000 years ago "between a man and a woman as husband and wife", isolated or exceptional violations notwithstanding but powerless to redefine what marriage is.

"Homarriage" and the like is an acceptable name for homosexual domestic partner civil unions, but "marriage", obviously, is not .. no matter what the SCOTUS decides.



It is difficult to argue that a behavior endemic to someone predisposed to that behavior is "wrong", though religions have tried through the ages.

And, a person can have a defect, and, of course, not be a "defective person".

Some people do see birth defects as "wrong", and are actively pursuing preventions to make things "right", so that people no longer have to suffer those birth defects.



Good for you!

You are doing all who suffer a birth defect a great service thereby, to eliminate the unjustified shame of suffering a birth defect that is simply not your fault.
Click to expand...

Wow you spout hate so eloquently.
 
captainawesome said:
Wow you spout hate so eloquently.
Click to expand...
It is amazing how ideologues, when faced with the truth they simply cannot accept, the truth which flies in the face of their ideological agenda, resort to name-calling false accusations.

Again, just another manifestation of debate capitulation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom