• 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!

On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long [W:29, 210]

Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

1.)Does editing my post make you feel better???
2.)How dare you even attempt to edit what I said and what I said boldly...
3.)If I was a mod you would get a warning for that.....
4.) With that said I'm not even going to address your assertions...

1.) i didnt edit your post, but please feel free to post more lies
2.) see #1
3.) you are not would never be and i cant get a warnign based on your posted lies
4.) translation: you cant and got nothing, your post got destoryed and you are deflectiong

complete failure it didnt work

i will ask you again and we'll see if you can man up and answer or deflect AGAIN

what law are you talking about SCOTUS writing
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

How is gay marriage or marriage in general a civil right? what amendment does that fall under?

you know these defections dont work right?
i will ask you again and we'll see if you can man up and answer or deflect AGAIN

what law are you talking about SCOTUS writing
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

I'm amazed at the stories formed in your mind.

you should read post 1048 then, that fantasy is amazing
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

I'm amazed at the stories formed in your mind.

I'm amazed by numerous things you have said......

Please explain to me how gay marriage is a civil liberty?

I know the constitutional argument for gay marriage but do you??

Please tell me so I can tell you that opposing gay marriage falls under the same Amendment.
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

you know these defections dont work right?
i will ask you again and we'll see if you can man up and answer or deflect AGAIN

what law are you talking about SCOTUS writing

Yeah I know in the progressive mind everything is a matter of opinion...

I'm wrong because you want me to be wrong because you disagree... That I can accept, however, rewriting our Constitution to your liking I cannot.
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

1.)Yeah I know in the progressive mind everything is a matter of opinion...

I'm wrong because you want me to be wrong because you disagree... That I can accept,
3.)however, rewriting our Constitution to your liking I cannot.

1.) progressive? lol anther failed deflection
2.) no you are wrong because you posted lies and facts make you that way. It has nothgin to do with me
3.) BOOM! thanks for proving my point, can you quote me saying i want the constitution rewritten? nope its another BS strawman you made up oin your head instead of talking about what is actually said and reality

i will ask you again and we'll see if you can man up and answer or deflect AGAIN

what law are you talking about SCOTUS writing
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

1.) progressive? lol anther failed deflection
2.) no you are wrong because you posted lies and facts make you that way. It has nothgin to do with me
3.) BOOM! thanks for proving my point, can you quote me saying i want the constitution rewritten? nope its another BS strawman you made up oin your head instead of talking about what is actually said and reality

i will ask you again and we'll see if you can man up and answer or deflect AGAIN

what law are you talking about SCOTUS writing

Apparently you just don't get it and never will....

Not only that but you actually ****ed with my post again.....

I don't talk to people who a) are ignorant to basic civics and B) Think it's funny to change my post around to suit your argument(s)...

With that said - and arguing with a wall - late...............
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

1.)Apparently you just don't get it and never will....
2.)Not only that but you actually ****ed with my post again.....

I don't talk to people who a) are ignorant to basic civics and B) Think it's funny to change my post around to suit your argument(s)...

With that said - and arguing with a wall - late...............

1.) nope thats your issue, you assume a bunch a crap in your head and then argue against it and it doesnt work because they are failed strawman. theres so much you ssaid that nobody even cam close to saying. maybe in the future focus on what is actually being said, youll have better success.
2.) this lie and deflection is never going to work. I number your points and my responsesout of courtesy and convince so you know exactly what im responding too. You words arent altered at all. sorry if you dont like this but the solution to your issue is easy. you can simply choose not to respond.
3.) see #2
4.) i accept your concession, its a good move since your posts and lies got destroyed

let us know when you are ready to answer instead of deflecting
just in case you forgot this is the question

what law are you talking about SCOTUS writing
 
The only failure is your failure to produce the 20 man condom study. Of course everyone knows why you won't produce the study, you can't. It doesn't exist. Yet you said it did. Everyone knows what that makes you.


I will be sure to remind people of how you invent studies that don't exist. And what that makes you.

And yet you've offered no proof and have decided to use a red herring to hide the fact that you both can't follow the context of the discussion and have been shown to have failed with your position. It doesn't surprise me that you were so easy to dispatch. Your lack of integrity from the other thread was quite evident and you have showed it again, here. Good job.
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

The rest of us are 37 states, that would be the majority [ one would even call it a super majority, by the way ], that either ban SSM or define marriage as one man one woman. Sorry, you want to revisit the concept of "irrelevance" I am supposing, take that for a walk...:lamo :lamo :lamo

And yet this has zero to do with what I said. 37 states are irrelevant to whether you or they have a right to be offended or not. "Them" not being fine with it is, as I said, irrelevant to the issue itself.

And normal is that which is not deviating from a norm...and if something such as homosexuality occurs in only between 2% and 5% of the population, that would mean it deviates from the norm and thus by definition is, simply, not normal.

From a statistical standpoint, this is true. However, normal has other definitions.

The fact that the parts do not fit gives further credence to the fact, the fact that your opinion is just your opinion makes no never mind...

This is pretty irrelevant and demonstrates that you do not understand the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior.

Now...if history is any determinant of the future, it is probably about time for you to make some false proclamation of winning the debate, as is your ubiquitous bent.

No, if history is any determinant of the present, it is about time for me to point out how you have lost... which you have and which you usually do when debating me.
 
Last edited:
Are you saying that heterosexuals and homosexuals are equals? Under what common designation do they fall that would grant a right to equal access to marriage?

Well, first one must define the purpose of marriage. What does marriage actually do? It provides a healthy place in which to rear children; it increases the health of the individuals; it creates more stability both socially and financially. All these things word towards societal improvement. In these areas, heterosexuality and homosexuality are equal.

OK, let me refute each, one a time.

1) You could say that both groups are human beings.

....but so are individuals over 18 and individuals under 18. Yet they are not granted equal access to marriage. So that alone doesn't grant equal rights to marriage. Pedophiles fall into this category.

False analogy. Those under 18 cannot consent to marriage. There is no evidence that those who marry under 18 provide any of the benefits that I stated above. In fact, there is evidence that the opposite is true.

2) you could claim that both groups are equally consenting adults.

...but that wouldn't alone grant equal rights to marriage because first degree relatives are in this category and can't get married either.

False analogy. There is no evidence that this kind of marriage would provide the benefits that I stated above. Further, we also know that this kind of union has two problems: if procreation occurs, birth defects are more likely; and it then becomes a dual relationship which is problematic as to which relationship applies.

3) you could claim that two homosexuals are in love like two heterosexuals would be.

..... Yet love alone can't grant equal rights to marriage. You and your (insert family member/pet/innate object here) may feel you are in love but cannot get married.

False analogy. Innate objects and pets can neither consent nor do they provide the same benefits as described above. Family members have already been addressed.

4) you can claim that two heterosexuals can create a loving family unit and raise children who need a home.

...yet again, polygamists and 1st degree relatives among others could fall into this category.

False analogy. Relatives have already been addressed. Evidence shows that polygamy does not provide the same kinds of benefits that I mentioned above. In fact, polygamy has been shown to do the opposite in many cases.

5) you could claim that homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality in that each is simply a sexual orientation one has the option to choose from.

...yet orientation is simply an affinity of one thing for another. Homosexuality is a behavior.

No, homosexuality is an orientation, it is most certainly NOT a behavior.

If you were to infer that homosexuality is an orientation then you would also have to concede that other orientations are on equal ground with homosexuality based on the simple category of alternative orientation. This would include incest, beastiality, and pedophilia. All of which are sexual orientations that without accompanied behavior are legal.

Incorrect. There is no conclusive evidence that either pedophilia or bestiality is an orientation. There is conclusive evidence that homosexuality, as an orientation, is on a par with heterosexuality. Beyond that, neither minors nor animals can consent, nor do these unions reap the same benefits. This is yet another false analogy.

Everything you mentioned was a false analogy because they were not equal.

So, it appears that one cannot claim a right to marriage by simply being two (or more) consenting human beings (even of adult age) of a certain orientation who are in love and feel they can raise a healthy family. ...unless you are willing to grant marriage rights to a host of other groups such as polygamists, first degree relatives, pedophiles, animal lovers (you know the kind I'm talking about :) ) etc.

This is why it's not a slippery slope.

Actually, because they examples you gave are false analogies, that is exactly why the slippery slope apples. No causation and not analogous.

Here's another premise. Heterosexuals are different than homosexuals on a basic concept. All people (aside from genetic malformations like hermaphroditism) are physically heterosexuals.

No they aren't. They are either male or female.

That is they are either physiologically male or female with corresponding parts. These parts are physiologically intended to attract to and complement the parts of the opposite sex. This is the intended design of our biology in order to propagate our species. Heterosexual behavior is the term given to this congruence. Homosexual behavior is a deviation from this and is an opposite behavior than our physiological biology intended. Heterosexual behavior is a congruence with our biology and homosexual behavior is an incongruence with our biology.
If our biology afforded a pathway for homosexuality to create genetic offspring then society could consider these two things simple sexual alternatives. But they are not.

You do not understand the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior. Further, procreation is irrelevant to marriage. Firstly, because it is not a requirement and secondly because homosexuals want to procreate and many do. Therefore, everything you said above does not apply to your argument.

Heterosexuality is a different entity completely than homosexual behavior.

You are again confusing sexual orientation and sexual behavior. These are two different things.

So I don't see how separate but equal is even an argument here as homosexuality is not equal with heterosexuality.

Pretty much everything you said was wrong. The information I gave shows the equality.

Therefore if heterosexuals create a social construct called marriage it is within their prerogative to define it as being between a man and a woman. (On the way that any group rationally discriminates it's commonalities for participation) Outside groups have no legitimate argument to force their way into it without also conceding the door to Pandora's box.

Therefore, since homosexuality and heterosexuality are similar in nearly every aspect that defines a relationship and is equally beneficial in each criterion that is a reason for marraige, there is no reason that both should not be called marriage because of these similarities; and because none of the other unions mentioned fits either of these, associating any of them as an offshoot of SSM becoming legal is a slippery slope logical fallacy.


I'm looking for a real discussion on this subject.

I think I gave you one.
 
Homosexuality is deviant sexual behavior. It has NOTHING to do with "societal norms" as if society could capriciously decree what is normal and what isn't.

This is incorrect. You do not seem to know the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior. And if we are talking about normal in a statistical sense, sure. However, if we are talking about normal as in acceptable, society CERTAINLY decides what is normal and what is not.
 
Probably because homosexuals and their friends are pushing so hard to remove the stigma and shame of the perverse and deviant behavior - and people are pushing back as hard or harder.

This is more demonstrative of you not understanding the issue. Your comments "perverse" and "deviant" are nothing more than your opinions and completely valueless when discussing facts in regards to orientation and behavior.
 
This is incorrect. You do not seem to know the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior. And if we are talking about normal in a statistical sense, sure. However, if we are talking about normal as in acceptable, society CERTAINLY decides what is normal and what is not.

Just a technical point....If we leave it to "society" to decide what is acceptable under law, by bending to the whims of changing attitudes, and without amendment, or consistency.... don't we do damage to the rule of law?
 
Just a technical point....If we leave it to "society" to decide what is acceptable under law, by bending to the whims of changing attitudes, and without amendment, or consistency.... don't we do damage to the rule of law?

Not really. This is pretty much what occurs. Societal norms dictate how laws are created.
 
I think it is. In general, I support laws reflecting societal values.

Yeah, I guess I do too, I just wonder if we don't take the necessary time to deliberate whether or not long term these laws make sense...I mean, we seem to knee jerk a lot of laws out there whether they conflict with others or not, then we set up a premise of what laws to enforce without ever striking the old laws off the books.

This along with, on the Federal side, not doing things constitutionally, lead to tyranny.
 
Yeah, I guess I do too, I just wonder if we don't take the necessary time to deliberate whether or not long term these laws make sense...I mean, we seem to knee jerk a lot of laws out there whether they conflict with others or not, then we set up a premise of what laws to enforce without ever striking the old laws off the books.

This along with, on the Federal side, not doing things constitutionally, lead to tyranny.

If you guys keep using that word it's going to lose all meaning.
 
This is incorrect. You do not seem to know the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior. And if we are talking about normal in a statistical sense, sure. However, if we are talking about normal as in acceptable, society CERTAINLY decides what is normal and what is not.
Well of course that's just nonsense. Homosexual sex is - and always has been - and always will be deviant behavior, perverse behavior if you prefer. And while societies may decide in general what's normal or acceptable (to them), they only do so within certain limits or boundaries otherwise unaffected by such caprices.

I flat out reject the absurd notion of "sexual orientation" - let alone the false notion that society must somehow cater to the self-indulgent whims of a few who have allowed themselves to be given over to whatever desires their bodies might crave, for whatever reasons such cravings may exist. Similarly, I would reject the notion of "beverage orientation" - unless perhaps a group of us who crave beer be successful defining ourselves as a special class of citizen deserving of special rights and treatment by virtue of our lagered emotions.

Homosexuality is gross self-indulgence. Nothing more. It's a behavior. It's perverse and deviant behavior. It's behavior that can be stopped and changed. And just because a few have given themselves over to it does not mean we need afford them special rights - shame and disgust, perhaps. Rights no - because sans the behavior, they have precisely the same rights right now the rest of us have.
 
This is more demonstrative of you not understanding the issue. Your comments "perverse" and "deviant" are nothing more than your opinions and completely valueless when discussing facts in regards to orientation and behavior.
That's just absurd and you ought to know better than to attempt to paint homosexual behavior as somehow "normal." In fact, I would *love* to read how you would describe homosexual sex as normal. Two men having sex - baring the sordid details - explain how such an act is normal. Or two women having sex. Explain the normalcy of that, the non-deviancy of that, the non-perverseness of that.

Frankly, let's let them keep their clothes on (yes, let's definitely do that) and perhaps you can explain the "normalcy" - the "non-deviancy" - or the non-perverseness of two men romantically kissing one another. Or two women.

Or let's make it even tamer yet - explain the normalcy of two men romantically holding hands. We'll wait....

Don't presume to lecture me on how I "don't understand" this issue. It has zip to do with understanding. We *all* understand it. It's just that some have abrogated their understanding in favor of a faux notion of "tolerance" and "compassion" - some have accepted and swallowed the lie that homosexual behavior is somehow "normal" - ignoring in the process the patently obvious. Some have discharged their sense of shame and disgust in favor of... I don't know... appeasement?

It's disgusting and shameful and it's high time we returned to realizing and accepting that.
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

And yet this has zero to do with what I said. 37 states are irrelevant to whether you or they have a right to be offended or not. "Them" not being fine with it is, as I said, irrelevant to the issue itself.
Just because you cannot make the association, and it appears unless you are the one that says it, you simply cannot make that small “leap”…well, needless to say, that hardly means it does not apply.

Your statement, “Those of you who are not fine with it are irrelevant. You have no right to not be offended.” is an inane position, one of, seemingly, almost halted cerebral development. When I replied that 37 states [ that being the vast majority, even a super majority of states] have either banned SSM by constitutional amendment or have laws that define marriage as only between one man and one woman, you feel that is irrelevant? A supermajority of American states is irrelevant?

Then you want to put forth a childlike position of whether or not one has a right to be offended or not [whoever brought up taking offense? Only you ]. This is not about sticking out one’s tongue and saying, “nah nahh na-nah nah”, this is all about keeping a sane, moral and sound societal system, keeping deviance from becoming associated closely, or placed on an equal basis, with that which is normal…

So where to you get your straw man of “taking offense”, anyhow?

From a statistical standpoint, this is true. However, normal has other definitions.
It is far beyond just the statistical standpoint. This is far from normal, it is far from desired, it is far from beneficial.

This is pretty irrelevant and demonstrates that you do not understand the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior.
We note that your calls of irrelevance are usually themselves pretty much irrelevant. While you are wrong about my particular understanding, that distinction in itself is irrelevant to what we are talking about. Abnormal sexual behavior, abnormal sexual preference and abnormal sexual orientation should have no sound basis in being a determinate in societal outcomes, especially if we want those to be favorable outcomes.



No, if history is any determinant of the present, it is about time for me to point out how you have lost... which you have and which you usually do when debating me.
Well, there we go, there is the newest in a long line of false proclamations, a laughable judge of one’s own specious position's greatness…special, very special.
 
...says those who would promote homosexual marriage.

I don't promote Same Sex Marriage... I promote Equal Rights and the enforcement of Anti-Discrimination Laws.

A class of self-indulgent individuals perhaps.
A class of self-indulgent individuals whose self-indulgence is characterized by their choice in sex partners.

Just as the class of self-indulgent individuals whose self-indulgence is characterized by their choice in sex partners: Heterosexuals

A class marked as distinctive for their peculiar behaviors, yes.

There are all sorts of people that have peculiar behaviours... yes. Do you advocate treating young men attracted to much older women as a lesser class as well?

That's demonstrably absurd; it's a lie containing no more truth than speeders claiming they speed because they have no choice. One might legitimately argue emotional or psychological trauma as a reason, but in the end it boils down to choice, a choice to give in to self-indulgent urges; and rather than acknowledge the truth, they've fabricated a web of lies to rationalize their shame - rather than be ashamed they've become proud of their deviant self-indulgences - so proud that now they want their behaviors given special treatment by society; they want - nay they demand society "accept" their deviant behavior as "normal" and they demand society treat them as "normal" who engage in such deviant behaviors.

You don't talk to many homosexuals, do you? I have never met any, as far as I know, that are ashamed. They embrace who they are and have talked openly and honestly about it. If you are an armchair quarterback reading hatred and never actually experiencing the people that you despise then you are ignorantly spouting bull****. I know... you have gay acquaintances... right. :roll:

And admittedly, society at large - including people like yourself - has bought their lies, accepted behavior as "normal" which is deviant, accepted self-indulgence as a good thing - regardless how depraved the indulgences are allowed to go.

What is depraved about their lives? Your ignorant hatred is depraved... of that I am certain.

Now, I call that depraved -- both the grossly self-indulgent behaviors as well as the societal acceptance of the grossly self-indulgent behaviors. You choose to call that bigotry. Only that's not your choice. Instead you made the choice to call that which is bad, good; that which is deviant, normal; that which is self-indulgent, "loving." You've abdicated your ability to choose as a consequence; you must call it bigotry. You have no choice. By yielding to their lies, by accepting them and denying the truth, you've become as self-indulgent as they - and how bitter the irony must be once you admit you too had "no choice."

Nope... not at all... you beliefs are bigoted. Pretty simple actually.
 
Yeah, I guess I do too, I just wonder if we don't take the necessary time to deliberate whether or not long term these laws make sense...I mean, we seem to knee jerk a lot of laws out there whether they conflict with others or not, then we set up a premise of what laws to enforce without ever striking the old laws off the books.

From what I see, things tend to take quite some time. Let's look at this issue, for example. Homosexuality was declassified as a disorder by the APA in 1973. Only NOW, 40 years later are folks starting to support SSM in majorities. That's pretty long for societal values to change enough for laws to be placed in effect.

This along with, on the Federal side, not doing things constitutionally, lead to tyranny.

Not sure I agree, but I tend to see the Constitution as being a fairly flexible document.
 
Back
Top Bottom