• 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!

After DOMA, gay couples still would not receive many federal benefits. [W:345]

After DOMA, gay couples still would not receive many federal benefits.

Members of the KKK say things about homosexuals that are the same things that you say about homosexuals. It's just strange that you use the same arguments. Just sayin.

Even the KKK can't be wrong all the time. The law of averages virtually guarantees it even if being right is pure accident. I imagine even you would have to be right a out something g eventually, too. Strange, sure. But true.
 
Tim, Tim, Tim. We've been over this many times. Homosexuality has been proven to be normal. Just because you don't accept it as such, just because you refuse to acknowledge the designations of all of the world's major psychological, medical, and scientific groups that it is, doesn't alter that it IS.




Not many people. People like you who don't like the results that the studies reveal.



LOL, homosexuality is proven to be normal.. Well then, what was I thinking? ;)


Tim-
 
LOL, homosexuality is proven to be normal.. Well then, what was I thinking? ;)


Tim-

Homosexuality is NOT normal. It is an aberration just as CANCER is a negative aberration. CANCER is NOT "normal" just because a minority of the general population have it ....... and a vocal minority of homos with the usually misguided libbers have made it a national issue. Given that a significant number of the population of USA are kind people and want to be "nice" ....plus the fact that they think with their "heart" instead of the BRAIN ......we have the present tumult where the homo and libber fantasy is becoming a reality.


Words have meaning. When one takes NATURE's first imperative, i.e. PROCREATION, and the libbers and homos crap on that. Then, take millenia's primary definition of the word "MARRIAGE" as the official definition of the union between MAN and WOMAN .....and the libbers and homos outrageously for their own agenda transform the meaning of the word MARRIAGE, then it should be obvious even to a retarded 4 year chimpanzee with a frontal lobotomy that the libbers and homos are outrageously outaline.
 
Homosexuality is NOT normal. It is an aberration just as CANCER is a negative aberration. CANCER is NOT "normal" just because a minority of the general population have it ....... and a vocal minority of homos with the usually misguided libbers have made it a national issue. Given that a significant number of the population of USA are kind people and want to be "nice" ....plus the fact that they think with their "heart" instead of the BRAIN ......we have the present tumult where the homo and libber fantasy is becoming a reality.


Words have meaning. When one takes NATURE's first imperative, i.e. PROCREATION, and the libbers and homos crap on that. Then, take millenia's primary definition of the word "MARRIAGE" as the official definition of the union between MAN and WOMAN .....and the libbers and homos outrageously for their own agenda transform the meaning of the word MARRIAGE, then it should be obvious even to a retarded 4 year chimpanzee with a frontal lobotomy that the libbers and homos are outrageously outaline.

This, of course, has no basis in reality. Homosexuality has been proven to be normal. It is nothing but the rant of someone who does not understand the information that surrounds this topic, or the rant of someone who refuses to understand information that surrounds this topic. Either way, there is nothing of substance in the rant.
 
Last edited:
Just because what you said wasn't what you meant doesn't mean I should have known that... "Well, gee, you should have asked instead of assuming what I said was what I meant since what I said wasn't really what I meant." OKeedokee. :) But I get it.... It's my fault for accepting what you said at face value; not your fault for saying something that sounded so queer. I used to think you were a centrist, but that sort of thing tells me you're really a lefty.

I don't particularly care to consider Papa Bull's interchange with Captain Courtesy, but to me Captain Courtesy has an unmistakable liberal bias from the many comments I have read.
 
This, of course, has no basis in reality. Homosexuality has been proven to be normal. It is nothing but the rant of someone who does not understand the information that surrounds this topic, or the rant of someone who refuses to understand information that surrounds this topic. Either way, there is nothing of substance in the rant.

Someone has their own personal definition of "normal", I see. :) The good ol', everything is "normal" if it's "normal" for me disingenuous schtick. Always good fun that one.
 
This, of course, has no basis in reality. Homosexuality has been proven to be normal. It is nothing but the rant of someone who does not understand the information that surrounds this topic, or the rant of someone who refuses to understand information that surrounds this topic. Either way, there is nothing of substance in the rant.

CC, Your exaggerated Liberal bias is clearly on display if you deny the following as you just did:

"Words have meaning. When one takes NATURE's first imperative, i.e. PROCREATION, and the liberals and homosexuals crap on that. Then, take millenia's primary definition of the word "MARRIAGE" as the official definition of the union between MAN and WOMAN .....and the liberals and homosexuals outrageously for their own agenda transform the meaning of the word MARRIAGE"...... the obvious conclusion is abundantly clear.
 
Last edited:
I don't particularly care to consider Papa Bull's interchange with Captain Courtesy, but to me Captain Courtesy has an unmistakable liberal bias from the many comments I have read.

After spending quite a bit of time on politics in political forums over the years (even on a site I owned and ran myself), nothing represents progressives that have been given moderator "buttons" better than....

BarneyFife.jpeg
 
CC, Your exaggerated Liberal bias is clearly on display if you deny the following as you just did:

"Words have meaning. When one takes NATURE's first imperative, i.e. PROCREATION, and the liberals and homosexuals crap on that. Then, take millenia's primary definition of the word "MARRIAGE" as the official definition of the union between MAN and WOMAN .....and the liberals and homosexuals outrageously for their own agenda transform the meaning of the word MARRIAGE"...... the obvious conclusion is abundantly clear.
Reality has a well known liberal bias. :/
 
CC, Your exaggerated Liberal bias is clearly on display if you deny the following as you just did:

"Words have meaning. When one takes NATURE's first imperative, i.e. PROCREATION, and the liberals and homosexuals crap on that. Then, take millenia's primary definition of the word "MARRIAGE" as the official definition of the union between MAN and WOMAN .....and the liberals and homosexuals outrageously for their own agenda transform the meaning of the word MARRIAGE"...... the obvious conclusion is abundantly clear.
In opposition, the homophobic atmosphere of society during your childhood does not constitute nature's definition of what is "normal" or "unnatural". Homosexuality has, as you clearly recognize, been common since the beginning of humanity and will continue to be long after our passing. Why? Simple: It's a natural and normal part of human sexuality driven by an innate, biological and unchangeable part of the human psyche.

So unlike any other human circumstance that could be deemed as "bad", we see (through science and the medicial community) that homosexuality does not cause harm to the individual or others, but rather, is able to enrich an individual's life so fully through human emotions such as companionship, love and mutual support that it would be immoral to deprive these individuals of this.

I may also add that capitalizing select words like MARRIAGE or NATURE does little other than to make you sound like a raving lunatic.
 
In opposition, the homophobic atmosphere of society during your childhood does not constitute nature's definition of what is "normal" or "unnatural". Homosexuality has, as you clearly recognize, been common since the beginning of humanity and will continue to be long after our passing. Why? Simple: It's a natural and normal part of human sexuality driven by an innate, biological and unchangeable part of the human psyche.

So unlike any other human circumstance that could be deemed as "bad", we see (through science and the medicial community) that homosexuality does not cause harm to the individual or others, but rather, is able to enrich an individual's life so fully through human emotions such as companionship, love and mutual support that it would be immoral to deprive these individuals of this.

I may also add that capitalizing select words like MARRIAGE or NATURE does little other than to make you sound like a raving lunatic.

GAY Brothern,

The whole issue of the "NORMALITY" of the unnatural homosexuals is based on NATURE's FIRST IMPERATIVE which is PROCREATION......to deny that is more than BIZARRE ...... it's like saying apples are the same as chairs. To negate NATURE in discussing whats "normal" in NATURE and what isn't ..... is PREPOSTEROUS ! One might as well negate "MOTHER" in MOTHERHOOD, CAMELS in the word "CAMEL", etc.

Also, to negate the word MARRIAGE when the whole issue revolves around the bogus assertion that "GAY" MARRIAGE is valid is ridiculous on its face.

You sound beyond BIZARRE !
 
GAY Brothern,

The whole issue of the "NORMALITY" of the unnatural homosexuals is based on NATURE's FIRST IMPERATIVE which is PROCREATION......to deny that is more than BIZARRE ...... it's like saying apples are the same as chairs. To negate NATURE in discussing whats "normal" in NATURE and what isn't ..... is PREPOSTEROUS ! One might as well negate "MOTHER" in MOTHERHOOD, CAMELS in the word "CAMEL", etc.

Also, to negate the word MARRIAGE when the whole issue revolves around the bogus assertion that "GAY" MARRIAGE is valid is ridiculous on its face.

You sound beyond BIZARRE !
... and your name sounds like a bad **** joke.

Where does it say that nature even has an imperative?
 
... and your name sounds like a bad **** joke.

Where does it say that nature even has an imperative?

MY RESPONSE:

To a twisted mind anything might sound like a "bad ****" joke. It so happens that HOONG LOONG in Chinese means RED DRAGON. And, before you immerse yourself into any addirtional fantasies, it simply is a colorful pseudonym and nothing more.

If you happen to be ignorant of NATURE's first imperative being PROCREATION than you sound even more mentally deficient (and unnatural) than you already are. It is only NATURAL that different species in NATURE want to propagate their own species......even the gays, as unnatural as cancer, want to propagate their own unnatural selves.
 
FACTS


legal marriage has ZERO to do with the following:
Religion
Procreation

Gay Marriage was around BC
 
MY RESPONSE:

To a twisted mind anything might sound like a "bad ****" joke. It so happens that HOONG LOONG in Chinese means RED DRAGON. And, before you immerse yourself into any addirtional fantasies, it simply is a colorful pseudonym and nothing more.

If you happen to be ignorant of NATURE's first imperative being PROCREATION than you sound even more mentally deficient (and unnatural) than you already are. It is only NATURAL that different species in NATURE want to propagate their own species......even the gays, as unnatural as cancer, want to propagate their own unnatural selves.
Nature isn't a sentient being that cares about what happens to a species, in contrast to what you seem to believe. In addition, there are many species that do not reproduce, including species that fall into animal taxonomies such as hydras, jellies, flatworms and bacteria. If procreation were to stop tomorrow, biological life would go on. Kinda impossible to call "procreation" an imperative when it's not even necessary for natural life.

Really, what seems to be happening is that you seem to believe that you have a right to judge other people, and are using "natural" arguments to justify you being able to attack them. Do you feel you have that right? If so, where have you earned this right to be a bigot?
 
I don't particularly care to consider Papa Bull's interchange with Captain Courtesy, but to me Captain Courtesy has an unmistakable liberal bias from the many comments I have read.

And you seem to have an extreme conservative bias. Neither of which is really relevant.
 
Someone has their own personal definition of "normal", I see. :) The good ol', everything is "normal" if it's "normal" for me disingenuous schtick. Always good fun that one.

Seems like you don't understand the definition of normal. Here let me explain it to you. Something normal would something that would not be considered disordered or something natural. Homosexuality fits in both. There. Now you know.
 
CC, Your exaggerated Liberal bias is clearly on display if you deny the following as you just did:

"Words have meaning. When one takes NATURE's first imperative, i.e. PROCREATION, and the liberals and homosexuals crap on that. Then, take millenia's primary definition of the word "MARRIAGE" as the official definition of the union between MAN and WOMAN .....and the liberals and homosexuals outrageously for their own agenda transform the meaning of the word MARRIAGE"...... the obvious conclusion is abundantly clear.

And your extreme conservative bias and non-objective view of this is clearly on display. Procreation is not a requirement for marriage. Unless you can prove that it is, using it as a legal definition is a failed argument. Further, from a philosophical standpoint, claiming that procreation is THE purpose for marriage is both wrong factually and logically, Marriage has always been about responsibility, especially towards children, NOT procreation. Gay unions fit that category, perfectly. And, using the "that's how things have always been" argument is an appeal to tradition logical fallacy. So, yes... the conclusion is clear, and the conclusion is that you are wrong.
 
Moderator's Warning:
People need to cease the personal attacks. Some consequences have already been levied. More will be if this continues.
 
And your extreme conservative bias and non-objective view of this is clearly on display. Procreation is not a requirement for marriage. Unless you can prove that it is, using it as a legal definition is a failed argument. Further, from a philosophical standpoint, claiming that procreation is THE purpose for marriage is both wrong factually and logically, Marriage has always been about responsibility, especially towards children, NOT procreation. Gay unions fit that category, perfectly. And, using the "that's how things have always been" argument is an appeal to tradition logical fallacy. So, yes... the conclusion is clear, and the conclusion is that you are wrong.

Marriage has always been about property, not responsibility. The responsibility for children lies with the parents, whether married or not...
 
And your extreme conservative bias and non-objective view of this is clearly on display. Procreation is not a requirement for marriage. Unless you can prove that it is, using it as a legal definition is a failed argument. Further, from a philosophical standpoint, claiming that procreation is THE purpose for marriage is both wrong factually and logically, Marriage has always been about responsibility, especially towards children, NOT procreation. Gay unions fit that category, perfectly. And, using the "that's how things have always been" argument is an appeal to tradition logical fallacy. So, yes... the conclusion is clear, and the conclusion is that you are wrong.

CC, Children exist as a RESULT of PROCREATION.......CHILDREN & PROCREATION are INEXTRICABLY BOUND TOGETHER.

Homosexuality and the union of these unnaturals, and abnormals that do not have any connection to PROCREATION, and the RESULT of PROCREATION is on its face RIDICULOUS !!!

You, and your category of individuals (with their enabling liberals) may want to persist in furthering your agenda and of course that is permissible with the freedom of speech.
 
Last edited:
Seems like you don't understand the definition of normal. Here let me explain it to you. Something normal would something that would not be considered disordered or something natural. Homosexuality fits in both. There. Now you know.

Heterosexuality is normal. So is having one head instead of two. So is sleeping at night and working by day. Despite the fact that deviations from these norms exist, neither having one head nor wanting to engage in sex with someone who shares the same sex organs you do is normal.
 
Heterosexuality is normal. So is having one head instead of two. So is sleeping at night and working by day. Despite the fact that deviations from these norms exist, neither having one head nor wanting to engage in sex with someone who shares the same sex organs you do is normal.

And Albert Einstein's genius is normal!

Oh never mind
 
Back
Top Bottom