• 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]

Papa bull said:
And you are trying to play the same self-stroking narcissistic game I've seen heard so many other homosexuals try to run down about their "group's" contributions to history as though there was some sort of wonderful thing about the "gay culture" that made people contribute special things to the sciences and arts and business than plain ol' heterosexuals would have or could have done. Go ahead and make the case that the "gay culture" has contributed significantly to society in any way other than as individuals utterly independent of their sexual activity.... just like any other nondescript group of people that is only defined by specific sexual behavior.
Click to expand...

I know that I cannot force myself to be attracted to just any guy. There are plenty of men who have shown interest in me in the past that I was not attracted to. And there are some who would have been good catches. Why would you assume that a person has a say in this? Even if it isn't something genetic, it still is something that is innate and/or not a conscious choice.

This is my question. Why did Mr. Loving have to be married to Mrs. Loving? If we can choose who we are attracted to, as you claim, then they should have been able to each choose someone of their own race instead. Afterall, their relative races isn't what put them in a relationship, but rather just them choosing to be in one. What was the purpose of changing the laws for their relationship, just because they couldn't choose to be with someone of their own race?
 
Papa bull said:
Yes.
Click to expand...

Great. So I'm sure you can tell me when you decided to be straight, right? Describe the first time you made a conscious decision to confine your lust to women. If you're as sure about this as you claim to be, you can do that, can't you?
 
Papa bull said:
Do I need to provide you links that say "homosexuality is a behavior"? Probably not. We can find links to say anything we want, and it's superfluous since it's obvious that homosexuality is a behavior. Lusting is a behavior. If you lust after or engage in sex with someone of the same sex, you are a homosexual. It's defined by behavior and you can shout "bull****" from dusk till dawn and it won't change that.
Click to expand...

Sexual orientation is a condition. It is basically set in stone by the time humans reach adolescence. It may indeed by sooner. Needless to say, sexual orientation has a lot to do with one's identity and how one relates to the society and others. To claim that homosexuality is just a behavior is like saying heterosexuality is just about having children. It's an absurd reduction of a complex human condition: our sexuality.
 
Papa bull said:
Unlike homosexuals, we don't define our very existence and being by our sexual preference.

To heterosexuals, it's not a "state of being". We just engage the opposite sex and that's that. Homosexuals lust after people of the same sex. Heterosexuals don't. The difference is behavior.
Click to expand...
LOL...aside from the fact that you are differentiating hetero from homo (the "defining)...are you seriously arguing that heterosexuals do not "lust" after other heterosexuals?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
I don't have to show they are "wonderful", all I have to show is that they DO contribute meaningfully to society....but wait....you just did that......and you also gave examples of how YOU stereotype them, how YOU subject them to discriminatory actions......YOU have made my case entirely in showing that they are a class subject to discrimination who contributes meaningfully to society.

You made my case, thank YOU!
Click to expand...

LOL!!! You are a very confused individual. There was no case made that homosexuals comprise a group that contributes in any special way to society. Religion does. Homosexuality does not. By your argument, any group, defined by any behavior, would and could be a suspect class merely because some individuals in the group have contributed something of value to society at one time or another.

You have poor reasoning and if you are young and have ideas about going to law school, do yourself a favor and forget about it.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
LOL...are seriously arguing that heterosexuals do not "lust" after other heterosexuals?
Click to expand...

I think you just had a brain fart... and a runny one at that. I said that homosexuals lust after people of the same sex. And heterosexuals do not. If you would take some remedial reading comprehension classes, you would realize that meant that heterosexuals lust after people of the opposite sex. (they may or may not be heterosexual).
 
Last edited:
head of joaquin said:
Sexual orientation is a condition. It is basically set in stone by the time humans reach adolescence.
Click to expand...

This is refuted by the reality that people have been known to switch teams several times. Therefore your statement cannot be a genuine fact even if you think it might be a reasonable assumption as a generality. It is still just an assumption and not a proven fact.

It may indeed by sooner. Needless to say, sexual orientation has a lot to do with one's identity and how one relates to the society and others. To claim that homosexuality is just a behavior is like saying heterosexuality is just about having children. It's an absurd reduction of a complex human condition: our sexuality.
Click to expand...

Heterosexuality is, basically, just about having children. Hence the reason so many homosexuals refer to heterosexuals in the pejorative as "breeders". It's certainly not a "way of life". When I'm asked what I am, my sexual orientation never comes to mind as my defining characteristic. For gay people it does. And that's queer (no pun intended).
 
Papa bull said:
LOL!!! You are a very confused individual. There was no case made that homosexuals comprise a group that contributes in any special way to society.
Click to expand...
The criteria is "contribute in a meaningful way", not special, not wonderful. You admitted that homosexuals DO contribute POSITIVELY like many other groups.


Religion does. Homosexuality does not.
Click to expand...
Homosexuals DO, remember, this is about the GROUP, not the characteristic.


By your argument, any group, defined by any behavior, would and could be a suspect class merely because some individuals in the group have contributed something of value to society at one time or another.
Click to expand...
This is a stupid statement, you either do not know the criteria for suspect groups, 2 of the criteria are that they contribute meaningfully to society AND are discriminated against.

You have poor reasoning and if you are young and have ideas about going to law school, do yourself a favor and forget about it.
Click to expand...
It doesn't take a student to destroy your arguments.
 
Last edited:
Papa bull said:
Yes. Unlike homosexuals, we don't define our very existence and being by our sexual preference. We don't state heterosexual pride parades to draw attention to the wonderfulness that is us. We don't walk around with gay pride shirts on. We don't feel the need to make sure every person we run into knows we go for the opposite sex whether they like it or not.

To heterosexuals, it's not a "state of being". We just engage the opposite sex and that's that. Homosexuals lust after people of the same sex. Heterosexuals don't. The difference is behavior.
Click to expand...

Most gays that I've talked to don't define their whole existence by their preference. Who are these gay people that you know?

They must live where all the "freestuffers that make up the rest of the left" live. I'll have to inform my employer that I don't actually work for them, and probably inform the court that I'm gay since that could make a difference in my divorce. Huh...all along I thought I was straight and worked for a living....
 
Papa bull said:
I think you just had a brain fart... and a runny one at that. I said that homosexuals lust after people of the same sex. And heterosexuals do not. If you would take some remedial reading comprehension classes, you would realize that meant that heterosexuals lust after people of the opposite sex. (they may or may not be heterosexual).
Click to expand...
My my, you don't even understand your own argument. Your argument was that heteros do not define themselves on their behaviour (but they do, you just defined how they do, it is inherent in the definition), you then tried to say that homosexuals are defined by their "lust", as if this was something that differentiates them from heteros. It doesn't. I know that heterosexuals and homosexuals are defined by who they are attracted to.....frigging duh.

You were implying that the ADDITIONAL difference was the amount of lust inherent to homosexuals. Where you get this from, I have no idea.
 
Papa bull said:
LOL!!! You are a very confused individual. There was no case made that homosexuals comprise a group that contributes in any special way to society. Religion does. Homosexuality does not. By your argument, any group, defined by any behavior, would and could be a suspect class merely because some individuals in the group have contributed something of value to society at one time or another.

You have poor reasoning and if you are young and have ideas about going to law school, do yourself a favor and forget about it.
Click to expand...

I would easily argue that religion contributes very little to society as we gain more knowledge about the world around us. Beliefs and values and even individual morals that include compassion and concern for others contribute to society a great deal, but people don't need religion for these things.

Homosexuality contributes plenty to society. It provides a buffer, even if only slightly, to overpopulation. Homosexuals are likely to only have children they actually want, certainly much more likely than heterosexuals. And homosexuals are fewer people adding to the population increase, which is a serious issue, whether some wish to recognize it as such or not. Homosexuality provides couples willing to take in children that heterosexual couples are less likely to take in because of their defects. Homosexuality provides yet another example of diversity in families and people.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
The criteria is "contribute in a meaningful way", not special, not wonderful. You admitted that homosexuals DO contribute POSITIVELY like many other groups.
Click to expand...

Not as a group. The "Gay Group" can take no credit for any meaningful contribution to society that I can think of even if individuals within that group are functioning and productive members of society.

Homosexuals DO, remember, this is about the GROUP, not the characteristic.
Click to expand...

And that's where your argument falls off a cliff. You want to attribute any productive activity by any member of the group to the "group". As I said before, that makes any group with any productive member of society "contribute in a meaningful way" just as much as the "gay group".

This is a stupid statement, you either do not know the criteria for suspect groups, 2 of the criteria are that they contribute meaningfully to society ANS are discriminated against.
Click to expand...

And if your argument held water in the supreme court, you'd already have what you wanted, wouldn't you? It will be difficult to prove either point - that "as a group" the 'homosexual group" contributes meaningfully to society any more than the group of "red haired people" contribute meaningfully to society or that they are discriminated against because unlike red-haired people, you can't tell someone is a homosexual except by their behavior. They don't look different. They don't have any distinguishing marks. They don't wear distinguishing symbols. They don't have any uniformity at all. So how do you argue that an indistinguishable group gets "discriminated against"?

It doesn't take a student to destroy your arguments.
Click to expand...

I don't know what it takes but that wasn't it.
 
roguenuke said:
I would easily argue that religion contributes very little to society as we gain more knowledge about the world around us. Beliefs and values and even individual morals that include compassion and concern for others contribute to society a great deal, but people don't need religion for these things.

Homosexuality contributes plenty to society. It provides a buffer, even if only slightly, to overpopulation. Homosexuals are likely to only have children they actually want, certainly much more likely than heterosexuals. And homosexuals are fewer people adding to the population increase, which is a serious issue, whether some wish to recognize it as such or not. Homosexuality provides couples willing to take in children that heterosexual couples are less likely to take in because of their defects. Homosexuality provides yet another example of diversity in families and people.
Click to expand...

You could argue that homosexuality is a buffer against overpopulation but it's not a compelling argument. I doubt you would try to make that a legal argument because it would probably weaken your other arguments a lot more than it would strengthen them.
 
Papa bull said:
This is refuted by the reality that people have been known to switch teams several times. Therefore your statement cannot be a genuine fact even if you think it might be a reasonable assumption as a generality. It is still just an assumption and not a proven fact.
Click to expand...

That refutes nothing except the notion that sexual orientation is unitary. People are complex. Their sexuality is complex. Get used to it.

Heterosexuality is, basically, just about having children. Hence the reason so many homosexuals refer to heterosexuals in the pejorative as "breeders". It's certainly not a "way of life". When I'm asked what I am, my sexual orientation never comes to mind as my defining characteristic. For gay people it does. And that's queer (no pun intended).
Click to expand...

This simplistic notion of human sexuality is another reason nobody takes conservatives seriously anymore on most major issues, like gay rights. The idea that heterosexual sexuality is "about" having children can be refuted by two words: blow job.
 
rocket88 said:
I'm unable to have children. Does that mean I'm not a heterosexual?
Click to expand...

Black labs are all about hunting and swimming....even if they are never permitted to go near the water or roam the fields. That you can't or don't have children doesn't change the fact that heterosexuality is, essentially, about having children. Or to put it more scientifically, it follows and adheres to the biological imperative. That on an individual basis it may fail to achieve the biological imperative is immaterial.
 
head of joaquin said:
That refutes nothing except the notion that sexual orientation is unitary. People are complex. Their sexuality is complex. Get used to it.



This simplistic notion of human sexuality is another reason nobody takes conservatives seriously anymore on most major issues, like gay rights.
Click to expand...

Don't argue with me about it. Argue with Darwin.
 
Papa bull said:
Not as a group. The "Gay Group" can take no credit for any meaningful contribution to society that I can think of even if individuals within that group are functioning and productive members of society.
Click to expand...
You keep going back and forth, you say that they as a group DO contribute positively to society like other groups do.



And that's where your argument falls off a cliff. You want to attribute any productive activity by any member of the group to the "group". As I said before, that makes any group with any productive member of society "contribute in a meaningful way" just as much as the "gay group".
Click to expand...
I know that, you are confirming again that they do contribute to society in a meaningful manner. That is one part of the criteria for suspect class.



And if your argument held water in the supreme court, you'd already have what you wanted, wouldn't you? It will be difficult to prove either point - that "as a group" the 'homosexual group" contributes meaningfully to society any more than the group of "red haired people" contribute meaningfully to society or that they are discriminated against because unlike red-haired people, you can't tell someone is a homosexual except by their behavior. They don't look different. They don't have any distinguishing marks. They don't wear distinguishing symbols. They don't have any uniformity at all. So how do you argue that an indistinguishable group gets "discriminated against"?
Click to expand...
FFS sake this is stupid, I already told you that SC's in the US have determined that they are a suspect class.....and.... you personally have stereotyped them, singling them out as a group for discrimination. i don't know why I have to keep reminding you that you already proved my case.



I don't know what it takes but that wasn't it.
Click to expand...
I know you have a strong case of denial.
 
Papa bull said:
Heterosexuality is, basically, just about having children.
Click to expand...

Go to any bar in any college town in the country and ask any group of single guys if the reason they're there has anything to do with trying to produce a child.
 
Papa bull said:
Heterosexuality is, basically, just about having children. Hence the reason so many homosexuals refer to heterosexuals in the pejorative as "breeders". It's certainly not a "way of life". When I'm asked what I am, my sexual orientation never comes to mind as my defining characteristic. For gay people it does. And that's queer (no pun intended).
Click to expand...

No heterosexuality is not "just about having children". If I couldn't have had children, I would still be heterosexual. I would still be an important person in society. The same goes for all people.

I have never talked to a gay person and had them tell me they were gay upon our first meeting. Most only reveal this because it is relevant to the conversation or someone else revealed it about them or it is revealed by who they are dating or mention they find attractive. Just like heterosexuals. I thought my roommate was asexual for quite some time until he finally got a girlfriend while we were sharing our third apartment. I found out it was just that he was attracted to really big women. He had no interest in women less than 200 pounds. So he appeared to not have any sexual interest because he wouldn't be attracted to the vast majority of the girls in the Navy (given that we have to maintain a weight way below that, no matter the height) and most of the other guys would point out women who were smaller, who simply didn't turn his head.
 
Ontologuy said:
Different day, same old ODD/BPD postings from CC. :roll:

If you'll read back to the beginning of your rants, you'll see that I never said you said it was anything other than a states' rights decision.

In fact, it may be one of the few things we actually agree on in the matter.

I merely emphasized that point .. and you apparently mistook it to mean you had said otherwise .. in typical oppostional defiant ideologue misconstruence.

:roll:

Again, giving it a rest may be your best move right now.
Click to expand...

You posted the comment TOWARDS me. Perhaps you might want to learn how to comment in a more appropriate and accurate fashion.

And yet you STILL haven't addressed the other point. Please post where I said or implied "redefine", as you claimed I did:

Now you try to deny that you previously clearly stated that the word "marriage" was redefined some time ago and that today's SCOTUS rulings substantiated those redefinitions.
Click to expand...

You really should not keep ignoring these confrontations. Makes you look bad.
 
Ontologuy said:
Rather than knee-jerking your oppositional defiance, you would have done well to read the poll reference I presented that validates the obvious reality I presented.
Click to expand...

Handled and completely refuted... with your own link.
 
Papa bull said:
You could argue that homosexuality is a buffer against overpopulation but it's not a compelling argument. I doubt you would try to make that a legal argument because it would probably weaken your other arguments a lot more than it would strengthen them.
Click to expand...

Those children that are already there would exist without them. They are adding to the existing population becoming actual productive members of society while not actually adding to that population. And they are families whether they have children of their own, adopt children, or are childless.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
You posted the comment TOWARDS me. Perhaps you might want to learn how to comment in a more appropriate and accurate fashion. And yet you STILL haven't addressed the other point. Please post where I said or implied "redefine", as you claimed I did: You really should not keep ignoring these confrontations. Makes you look bad.
Click to expand...
Meaningless, as always.

You erred in your victim mentality thinking.

That makes you look bad, not me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom