• 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]

Ontologuy said:
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.
Click to expand...

I gave you a compliment.

You write your hate filled diatribes with flair and good sentence structure.
 
captainawesome said:
Your silly not my one vote. There will be many voters.

If you dont want liberty for others you will lose yours.
Click to expand...

Or I can just move and leave this sewer to the rats. Either way, good luck getting the blacks in the democratic base to support gay marriage in droves.
 
Fisher said:
Or I can just move and leave this sewer to the rats. Either way, good luck getting the blacks in the democratic base to support gay marriage in droves.
Click to expand...

They are coming around very quickly.
 
captainawesome said:
I gave you a compliment. You write your hate filled diatribes with flair and good sentence structure.
Click to expand...
No, obviously, that was not a compliment -- it was an unjustified ad hominem, obviously.

That you employ sarcasm in the form of denying that obvious reality is meaningless.
 
Oh, I so wish that we could have one thread on SSM or get issues that the retarded, refuted and badly ignorant birth defect crap would not get brought up in.
 
Scientiam said:
Gays are welcome to pledge their love to each other all they want, publicly or privately. If they want the same rights as a married heterosexual couple, they can get civil unions. They can refer to themselves as "married" all they want, and others can refer to them that way too. They just don't have the legal label of being "married". Yes, it's not the exact same type of legal status as a heterosexual marriage. But then, it's also not the exact same type of relationship as a heterosexual marriage.
Click to expand...

1: They do not get the same rights as a married heterosexual couple. For one they do not get the exact same benefits state to state and two the Federal Government does not recognize any homosexual civil union in any part of the US. So no, they are not even close to having the same rights.

3: Seperate but equal (even though there is absolutely NOTHING equal about how things are currently) is not equal.
 
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...

You've convinced us that you'll vote to take ours no matter what happens.
 
Fisher said:
Or I can just move and leave this sewer to the rats. Either way, good luck getting the blacks in the democratic base to support gay marriage in droves.
Click to expand...
Indeed, it was Blacks in California who abandoned their usual liberal perspective and were the major demographic factor in California's passage of Prop 8.

Couple that with the amnesty and legalization bill that if passess would cost Blacks a ton of income ..

.. And the Repubs' "Prussians in the woods" to the haughty Napoleonic Dems is the Black community at large, and the Dems' "battle strategy" could actually backfire on the Dems' imperialistic designs.
 
Ontologuy said:
No, obviously, that was not a compliment -- it was an unjustified ad hominem, obviously.

That you employ sarcasm in the form of denying that obvious reality is meaningless.
Click to expand...

Oh like a long thinly veiled smear calling homosexuals birth defects.
 
Personally, if the government is going to be in the marriage business, which I don't believe they should be, I'd just as soon see it open to any "pairing" of individuals who wish to make that commitment. Likewise, if that happens, I'd love to see adoptions and foster care and other child welfare impediments removed so that gay couples or any other non-traditional "pairing" is free to welcome into their homes children who find themselves unwanted or uncared for and even traditional pairings are given freer access in the hope that fewer children will suffer the abortion fate going forward.
 
Papa bull said:
You've convinced us that you'll vote to take ours no matter what happens.
Click to expand...

All we need to do is agree to live and let live.

You vote for my liberty I will vote for your's.

You vote against mine I vote against yours.
 
Redress said:
Oh, I so wish that we could have one thread on SSM or get issues that the retarded, refuted and badly ignorant birth defect crap would not get brought up in.
Click to expand...
Though you may not like the birth defect reality of homosexuality, it remains the one single solid scientitifc presentation on the etiology of homosexuality.

Reality remains that the birth defect etiology of homosexuality simply was not "refuted" .. it was whined against .. a lot .. but not "refuted", obvious from a simple reading of the thread.

Granted, the birth defect reality of homosexuality will be a harsh reality for ideologues to accept, and for reasons presented in the OP of that thread.

But the birth defect reality of homosexuality is reality.

And, acceptance is always for the best.
 
Ontologuy said:
Though you may not like the birth defect reality of homosexuality, it remains the one single solid scientitifc presentation on the etiology of homosexuality.

Reality remains that the birth defect etiology of homosexuality simply was not "refuted" .. it was whined against .. a lot .. but not "refuted", obvious from a simple reading of the thread.

Granted, the birth defect reality of homosexuality will be a harsh reality for ideologues to accept, and for reasons presented in the OP of that thread.

But the birth defect reality of homosexuality is reality.

And, acceptance is always for the best.
Click to expand...

There is no science to it. Trying to claim it is science is much like truthers claiming science proves that the government is hiding the truth on 9/11.
 
captainawesome said:
Oh like a long thinly veiled smear calling homosexuals birth defects.
Click to expand...
Being the ideologue that you are, I can understand where you would erroneously imagine presenting the birth defect reality of homosexuality to be "a smear", as that reality will have an adverse affect on your ideological agenda.

But I presented the truth of the birth defect reality of homosexuality in a straight-forward non-disparaging manner.

So your transferance and displacement is simply that.
 
Ontologuy said:
Though you may not like the birth defect reality of homosexuality, it remains the one single solid scientitifc presentation on the etiology of homosexuality.

Reality remains that the birth defect etiology of homosexuality simply was not "refuted" .. it was whined against .. a lot .. but not "refuted", obvious from a simple reading of the thread.

Granted, the birth defect reality of homosexuality will be a harsh reality for ideologues to accept, and for reasons presented in the OP of that thread.

But the birth defect reality of homosexuality is reality.

And, acceptance is always for the best.
Click to expand...

See you do hate with flair.
 
Ontologuy said:
Being the ideologue that you are, I can understand where you would erroneously imagine presenting the birth defect reality of homosexuality to be "a smear", as that reality will have an adverse affect on your ideological agenda.

But I presented the truth of the birth defect reality of homosexuality in a straight-forward non-disparaging manner.

So your transferance and displacement is simply that.
Click to expand...

Yes you are verbose and articulate at hate mongering.
 
Redress said:
There is no science to it. Trying to claim it is science is much like truthers claiming science proves that the government is hiding the truth on 9/11.
Click to expand...
False, obviously.

The OP of the thread links to scientific presentations by scientists that accurately demonstrate the epigenetic scientific etiology of the birth defect of homosexuality.

Again, I can understand where ideologues will take exception to this scientific revelation.

But the exception they take is not truly because they don't believe it is true, as even ideologues recognize the science and scientific reality presented in the OP.

The exception ideologues take to the reality of the birth defect etiology of homosexuality is because that reality will have an adverse affect on the ideologues agenda, even though the birth defect nature reality of homosexuality will have a very positive benefit to all who suffer the birth defect.
 
Ontologuy said:
False, obviously.

The OP of the thread links to scientific presentations by scientists that accurately demonstrate the epigenetic scientific etiology of the birth defect of homosexuality.

Again, I can understand where ideologues will take exception to this scientific revelation.

But the exception they take is not truly because they don't believe it is true, as even ideologues recognize the science and scientific reality presented in the OP.

The exception ideologues take to the reality of the birth defect etiology of homosexuality is because that reality will have an adverse affect on the ideologues agenda, even though the birth defect nature reality of homosexuality will have a very positive benefit to all who suffer the birth defect.
Click to expand...

Truthers always claim the same. It is your flawed understanding of what you link.
 
Redress said:
Oh, I so wish that we could have one thread on SSM or get issues that the retarded, refuted and badly ignorant birth defect crap would not get brought up in.
Click to expand...

You'd have to keep the religious out, which I think is a good thing anyhow.
 
Redress said:
Truthers always claim the same. It is your flawed understanding of what you link.
Click to expand...
You're simply behaving like an ideologue with a wounded agenda, and you exemplify a flawed debate strategy of name-calling.

If you have some scientific facts you'd like to present that you think would refute the obvious scientific presentation of the epigenetic reality of homosexuality, then by all means start a new thread and present them.

Otherwise, I think we're done with this topic here in this thread, as we've gotten off-topic a bit.
 
captainawesome said:
All we need to do is agree to live and let live.

You vote for my liberty I will vote for your's.

You vote against mine I vote against yours.
Click to expand...

Two things. 1. The gun-grabbing agenda is too important to the pinkos and pinkos will vote for it no matter what they say. 2. Homosexuals are already free to live with and love whoever they please. I'd have been a lot more sympathetic about "rights" and "freedoms" if the homosexual community hadn't rejected "civil unions" offering ALL the same rights as marriage. It was then that I realized that it wasn't about homosexuals actually wanting to get married; very few would actually benefit from that. It was about something else and something a lot less honest and a lot less heart wrenching than bleeding heart stories about being deprived of rights.
 
Papa bull said:
Two things. 1. The gun-grabbing agenda is too important to the pinkos and pinkos will vote for it no matter what they say. 2. Homosexuals are already free to live with and love whoever they please. I'd have been a lot more sympathetic about "rights" and "freedoms" if the homosexual community hadn't rejected "civil unions" offering ALL the same rights as marriage. It was then that I realized that it wasn't about homosexuals actually wanting to get married; very few would actually benefit from that. It was about something else and something a lot less honest and a lot less heart wrenching than bleeding heart stories about being deprived of rights.
Click to expand...

See you dont want freedom or liberty you want authority.

We will be slaves together.
 
Papa bull said:
Two things. 1. The gun-grabbing agenda is too important to the pinkos and pinkos will vote for it no matter what they say. 2. Homosexuals are already free to live with and love whoever they please. I'd have been a lot more sympathetic about "rights" and "freedoms" if the homosexual community hadn't rejected "civil unions" offering ALL the same rights as marriage. It was then that I realized that it wasn't about homosexuals actually wanting to get married; very few would actually benefit from that. It was about something else and something a lot less honest and a lot less heart wrenching than bleeding heart stories about being deprived of rights.
Click to expand...

First off: Civil unions have never actually managed to be treated equally. There are simply so many laws tied into marriage that it's basically impossible to make sure everything is covered. Furthermore, even when one state manages to implement proper civil unions, other states do not and neither does the federal government. Merely driving into a state that doesn't recognize same-sex civil unions could potentially bring about some trouble.

Second, what you have so graciously offered to homosexuals is a "separate but equal" designation. Ponder that and maybe you'll figure out why people don't think it's good enough.

Finally, I'd ask you to try to back up your bull**** conspiracy about the gay agenda by explaining to me that if homosexuals don't want to get married, why are we even having this discussion? Then I'd ask you to explain why it matters how many people choose to exercise a particular right.

You're right. Homosexuals are free to live with someone. Well, except when a freaking judge orders them not to. But tell us more about why you think they should be delegated to this separate-but-equal designation. Maybe I can just shortcut the whole thing for you: Separate but Equal is inherently NOT EQUAL. It would still leave homosexuals with a metaphorical scarlet letter. A stigma that will always be associated with a group that is being kept apart. It's a label, stamped and approved by the United States government, stating that these people aren't good enough to be lumped in with the rest of society. **** that, man. Nobody should have to live like that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom