• 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

Ah. The slippery slope logical fallacy. Always one of the favorites of those who try to debate the opposite side of the issue.

You can call it a slippery slope logical fallacy all you want, but in LAW it has legs.
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

You can call it a slippery slope logical fallacy all you want, but in LAW it has legs.

Not at all. It's a slippery slope logical fallacy simply because you are attempting to compare two NON analogous situations. Standard easily dismissed attempts by the opposition in this matter.
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

Ah. The slippery slope logical fallacy. Always one of the favorites of those who try to debate the opposite side of the issue.

How is defining a civil right based on "a strong personal desire" not going to open the door for other strong personal desires becoming rights? I have no problem with states changing their marriage laws to make them more popular and inclusive but I do have a problem with the concept of a federal judge mandating "fairness" based on anyone's strong personal desires.

There is no more reason to have all states fall under the same (least restrictive) alcohol, drug, driving, tax or marriage laws. Some things are not federal powers without a constitutional amendment making them such.
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

I explained it adequately. That you didn't get it isn't my fault.

Racists (on either side) seldom, if ever, recognize that they are racists. Add to that a homosexual bias, and you have the explanation for the myopia.
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

How is defining a civil right based on "a strong personal desire" not going to open the door for other strong personal desires becoming rights? I have no problem with states changing their marriage laws to make them more popular and inclusive but I do have a problem with the concept of a federal judge mandating "fairness" based on anyone's strong personal desires.

If one uses precedence to to encourage new laws, the new situation must match up. The ones mentioned do not.

There is no more reason to have all states fall under the same (least restrictive) alcohol, drug, driving, tax or marriage laws. Some things are not federal powers without a constitutional amendment making them such.

Well, I believe that you and I would fundamentally disagree on this.
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

Not at all. It's a slippery slope logical fallacy simply because you are attempting to compare two NON analogous situations. Standard easily dismissed attempts by the opposition in this matter.
The argument is justified reasoning and presents a valid analogy. Maybe not to one whose argument is based in emotion but in LAW is very probable.
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

The argument is justified reasoning and presents a valid analogy. Maybe not to one whose argument is based in emotion but in LAW is very probable.

No, it does not have justified reasoning and is not a valid analogy. Maybe to someone whose argument is based on emotion, but not with logic.

What analogy do you want to try, vesper? Polygamy? Polygamy is not a sexual orientation; homosexuality is. Polygamy has no research that demonstrates it's positive attributes to the health of the individuals, children, and society as a whole; homosexuality does. Want to try for NAMBLA/pedophilia? NAMBLA/pedophilia addresses children, who cannot consent; homosexuality/SSM addresses those who can consent. NAMBLA/pedophilia harms other people; homosexuality/SSM does not.

See? VERY poor analogies which demonstrate how the slippery slope fallacy is in effect for your argument and fails to prove your position.
 
Last edited:
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

As I recall the story of Lot involves him offering his two daughters to be raped by a crowd and later those daughters get him drunk so he will impregnate them. That isn't exactly what I would call a great story about sexual morality.
No, it isn't at all. However, I didn't present it as a story of great sexual morality either.

The Bible does not actually state a specific sin that Sodom was struck down for but people like to interpret it as homosexual behavior...although it could just as easily been gang rape that God would have been unhappy about given the context. And Ezekiel seems to make it sound like failing to care for the poor might have been a larger issue.

Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy. Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me. (Ezekiel 16.49–50 NASB)
Well, the point isn't Sodom's destruction, or what specific sin or sins led to Sodom's destruction; moreover I never put forth homosexuality as *the* sin in that context either.

Abominations refer to many, many different sins. Love of money, dishonest trade, adultery, divorce, improper sacrifice, certain dietary habits, etc. are all referenced in the Bible as "abominations" so I'm not sure why people fixate on homosexuality somehow being the only one especially given the context of the verse.
Yes they do, you are correct, the bible does refer to many things as "abominations." And while homosexuality is considered an abomination: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." (Lev 18:22), and "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." (Lev 20:13), other behaviors are called abominations too. This is correct.

As for the definition of "sodomy" in context of laws, it has been used in the United States to refer to oral sex, anal sex, and sex with animals. That is just how the laws have been written. I think that is because sodomy took on a sense of "unnatural sex acts" tone in American history where anything other than vaginal sex was seen as unnatural. If you bother to look in most dictionaries that is how it is defined.
I won't dispute that. But neither do I think I need to. If the assertion now is that, in the context of laws, that the definition of sodomy has been so watered down as to include loving heterosexual couples engaging in oral or anal sex - that ergo, sodomy in general is [now] a perfectly normal and loving thing between a husband and a wife, or between a man and a man, or between a woman and a woman - as was the original assertion that began this train of discussion, then that I do dispute, vehemently.

I [first] dispute the efforts by whomever to broaden the definition of sodomy beyond its original and logical meaning - specifically to broaden it to include as you note "unnatural sex acts" let alone, bestiality. W/r to the bible, there is zero justification for doing this. None whatsoever.

Second, in the English language (and I know you know this, just pointing out), we generally affix a "y" to the end of some words (e.g. sodom'y') to indicate likeness, or similarity - e.g. water'y' means "like water." In our context we're talking about "like sodom." Now, we only have one source - the bible - to learn what sodom "was like." Whatever the sins of sodom were, and as you correctly noted, they were many and varied, the SEXUAL sins of sodom, according to the bible, were singular, one. Homosexuality. Ezekiel 16 corroborates this, as does Genesis 19.

Now, some have attempted the rather puerile assertion that sodomy refers strictly to "homosexual rape," ostensibly no doubt to be able later to assert that for other than cases of rape that homosexual sex is perfectly fine and normal. This is a very simple thing to refute inasmuch as we know the intent of the men of the city was to have sex with the men who had come to rescue Lot. That they were willing to do it forcibly I think goes without question; however, it would be difficult to refute that they would have relented if they'd found willing partners. They were driven strictly by their peculiar sexual desires, desires the bible calls abominable, which Leviticus 13 and Leviticus 20 corroborate.
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

Maybe not to one whose argument is based in emotion

If ANYBODY here is operating under pure emotion it's you.

There's absolutely no logical path one can take that equates same-sex marriage to pedophilia.

That's 100% pure emotion. Nothing else.
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

In reality, sodomy does not refer to homosexual acts, but homosexual RAPE. Consensual homosexual sex does not apply to the term... if one is going to use a biblical interpretation.

So, either way sodomy is not about the homosexual orientation, or it is about sexual acts that can be performed regarding either orientation.
< Heavy sigh > Little did I know I'd actually see the homosexual rape argument this soon. See my post #258 above.
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

You can call it a slippery slope logical fallacy all you want, but in LAW it has legs.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean, but it's possible for a slippery slope to actually be one.
Why limit the redefinition of "marriage" to only two people? Why not to "throuples"? Why shouldn't polyamorous relationships be legal?

Here is a an opinion piece at WaPo by an estate attorney who is arguing for "wedleases" rather than wedlock: A high divorce rate means it’s time to try ‘wedleases’ - The Washington Post

A National Review article discusses new terms such as "throuples" and defines "monogamish."
Redefine Marriage, Debase Language? | National Review Online

Ryan Anderson goes on to argue:

The breakdown of the marriage culture since the 1960s made it possible in this generation to consider redefining marriage in the law to exclude sexual complementarity. But if the law redefines marriage to say the male-female aspect is arbitrary, what principle will be left to retain monogamy, or sexual exclusivity, or the expectation of permanency?

What these new words and redefinitions have in common is that they make marriage primarily about adult desire, primarily an intense emotional relationship between (or among) consenting adults, regardless of size or shape. And why should relationships among consenting adults be exclusive? Or permanent?

Here's the New York Magazine article that introduced "throuple": The Sex Issue - A Long Island City Throuple in the Gay Porn Industry -- New York Magazine
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

Now, some have attempted the rather puerile assertion that sodomy refers strictly to "homosexual rape," ostensibly no doubt to be able later to assert that for other than cases of rape that homosexual sex is perfectly fine and normal. This is a very simple thing to refute inasmuch as we know the intent of the men of the city was to have sex with the men who had come to rescue Lot. That they were willing to do it forcibly I think goes without question; however, it would be difficult to refute that they would have relented if they'd found willing partners. They were driven strictly by their peculiar sexual desires, desires the bible calls abominable, which Leviticus 13 and Leviticus 20 corroborate.

No, you are incorrect. The story about Sodom and Gommorah was about homosexual rape as I showed. As far as Leviticus, here is what those passages really meant:

Here is my treatment on the two Leviticus passages:

Leviticus 18:22: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
Leviticus 20:13: "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."


There are so many errors in the interpretation of these passages. One has to understand the section of the Torah that they were taken, what the context was, and the translations of the actual words. These passages cannot stand by themselves and mean what they were supposed to mean.

The section of the Torah where these passages were taken refers to codes of holiness and purity. It describes ways that God wants the Hebrews to be different from the Pagans. The passages that surround these two include passages about bestiality and incest, other unclean/unholy acts that were performed by Pagans. Now, we must first look at the word "abomination". This is taken from the Hebrew word "to'ebah". The actual translation of this is NOT abomination, but ritually unclean, something that fits perfectly with the codes of that section of the Bible. So, we now have it not an abomination, but just something that is ritually unclean.

Next, since this passage is included in the codes of holiness section, it refers to acts that Pagans do, that God wants the Hebrews to separate from. One of these acts is engaging in anal sex with male prostitutes. Now, even if we look at the issue, globally, Hebrew translations refer to anal sex acts; no mention of homosexual orientation or homosexual relationships are mentioned. At all.

Now, moving on to the actual words. Since Hebrews believed that the Torah was spoken directly to Moses from God, one must wonder why the passage reads like this:
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." If God was saying something against homosexuality in men, He would have just said this: ""Thou shalt not lie with mankind: it is abomination." Why the "as womankind" part? Think about it. A man should not lie with another man as if HE were a woman. Sexuality in the Torah is always presented as male dominant/female subservient. Hebrew scholars see this as meaning that if men have sexual relations, NEITHER shall be passive ("as womankind"). Also, since this was a norm of the time, this does not apply to today, anyway.

So, what can we conclude from the actual Hebrew interpretations and the context of what was being discussed? Firstly, the entire section refers to holiness codes, separating the Hebrews from the Pagans. Secondly, the word "abomination" is not accurate; ritually unclean IS accurate. This eliminates any punishment. Thirdly, only anal sex, probably in the context of male prostitutes is prohibited; homosexual orientation has no mention and has no such prohibitions. Fourthly, IF homosexual behavior does occur, neither man can be the passive (woman) in the relationship. Fifthly, this only applies to ancient Hebrews. Sixthly, lesbian relationships are not mentioned at all and, therefore have no prohibitions.

Now, there is MORE evidence that the prostitution theory holds water. Leviticus 18:3 says this: "After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances." God is saying that the Hebrews are NOT to behave like the Pagans (Canaanites and Egyptians). In both cultures, ritual gay sex with male prostitutes was common.
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

< Heavy sigh > Little did I know I'd actually see the homosexual rape argument this soon. See my post #258 above.

Saw it. It does nothing to refute what I said.
 
oh for Pete's sakes:

Sodomy - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

sodomy legal definition of sodomy. sodomy synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

sodomy legal definition of sodomy. sodomy synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.


How many sources do I need to post?

Screw the "biblical" interpretations. The bible can justify killing thousands of innocent children.

Our laws are not written around the biblical interpretations of words from evangelical nitwits.


If sodomy is forced on someone it's rape.

Otherwise all married, unmarried, consenting adult heterosexual couples engage in sodomy (by definition) eagerly and enthusiastically on a daily basis all over the world.

This isn't rocket science.

If you personally chose to bastardize the definition then you need to unequivocally state for the record exactly what YOUR definition is. As I've asked one person here to do, and he's consistently refused to do that.


From the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

[h=2]Definition of SODOMY[/h]: anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex;


Simple, concise, to the point, and clear as day.


SodomyAnal or oral intercourse between human beings



To argue against these definitions using the bible is just outright silly, biased, and unconstitutional to boot.
 
Last edited:
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

I'm not exactly sure what you mean, but it's possible for a slippery slope to actually be one.
Why limit the redefinition of "marriage" to only two people? Why not to "throuples"? Why shouldn't polyamorous relationships be legal?

Here is a an opinion piece at WaPo by an estate attorney who is arguing for "wedleases" rather than wedlock: A high divorce rate means it’s time to try ‘wedleases’ - The Washington Post

A National Review article discusses new terms such as "throuples" and defines "monogamish."
Redefine Marriage, Debase Language? | National Review Online

Ryan Anderson goes on to argue:

The breakdown of the marriage culture since the 1960s made it possible in this generation to consider redefining marriage in the law to exclude sexual complementarity. But if the law redefines marriage to say the male-female aspect is arbitrary, what principle will be left to retain monogamy, or sexual exclusivity, or the expectation of permanency?

What these new words and redefinitions have in common is that they make marriage primarily about adult desire, primarily an intense emotional relationship between (or among) consenting adults, regardless of size or shape. And why should relationships among consenting adults be exclusive? Or permanent?

Here's the New York Magazine article that introduced "throuple": The Sex Issue - A Long Island City Throuple in the Gay Porn Industry -- New York Magazine

I certainly don't see the slippery slope as a fallacy. Captain Courtesy does. I see it a reality due to the changes in LAW.
Good points.
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

Ah. The slippery slope logical fallacy. Always one of the favorites of those who try to debate the opposite side of the issue.

The difference between a slippery slope and the well established path of incremental-ism is what exactly?
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

Ezekiel 16 - "As I live, declares the Lord God, your sister Sodom and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done. Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty and did an abomination before me. So I removed them, when I saw it."

LOL....like I said....Cafeteria choosing....God says "They hadPRIDE, EXCESS OF FOOD, PROSPEROUS EASE and did not aid the poor and needy"...and you try to point to a generic "abomination". Maybe they were wearing clothing made of two different fabrics, ate shellfish or had sex while menstruating.
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

No, it does not have justified reasoning and is not a valid analogy. Maybe to someone whose argument is based on emotion, but not with logic.

What analogy do you want to try, vesper? Polygamy? Polygamy is not a sexual orientation; homosexuality is. Polygamy has no research that demonstrates it's positive attributes to the health of the individuals, children, and society as a whole; homosexuality does. Want to try for NAMBLA/pedophilia? NAMBLA/pedophilia addresses children, who cannot consent; homosexuality/SSM addresses those who can consent. NAMBLA/pedophilia harms other people; homosexuality/SSM does not.

See? VERY poor analogies which demonstrate how the slippery slope fallacy is in effect for your argument and fails to prove your position.

Really? NAMBLA IS a Homosexual organization. And you act like laws can never change to protect the age of consent. Under aged girls now have the right to seek an abortion without their parents knowing. Did most see that coming 10 years ago? In Mexico consensual sex between a 12 and 18 year old is not considered illegal.
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

No, it isn't at all. However, I didn't present it as a story of great sexual morality either.

Well, the point isn't Sodom's destruction, or what specific sin or sins led to Sodom's destruction; moreover I never put forth homosexuality as *the* sin in that context either.

Yes they do, you are correct, the bible does refer to many things as "abominations." And while homosexuality is considered an abomination: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." (Lev 18:22), and "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." (Lev 20:13), other behaviors are called abominations too. This is correct.

I won't dispute that. But neither do I think I need to. If the assertion now is that, in the context of laws, that the definition of sodomy has been so watered down as to include loving heterosexual couples engaging in oral or anal sex - that ergo, sodomy in general is [now] a perfectly normal and loving thing between a husband and a wife, or between a man and a man, or between a woman and a woman - as was the original assertion that began this train of discussion, then that I do dispute, vehemently.

I [first] dispute the efforts by whomever to broaden the definition of sodomy beyond its original and logical meaning - specifically to broaden it to include as you note "unnatural sex acts" let alone, bestiality. W/r to the bible, there is zero justification for doing this. None whatsoever.

Second, in the English language (and I know you know this, just pointing out), we generally affix a "y" to the end of some words (e.g. sodom'y') to indicate likeness, or similarity - e.g. water'y' means "like water." In our context we're talking about "like sodom." Now, we only have one source - the bible - to learn what sodom "was like." Whatever the sins of sodom were, and as you correctly noted, they were many and varied, the SEXUAL sins of sodom, according to the bible, were singular, one. Homosexuality. Ezekiel 16 corroborates this, as does Genesis 19.

Now, some have attempted the rather puerile assertion that sodomy refers strictly to "homosexual rape," ostensibly no doubt to be able later to assert that for other than cases of rape that homosexual sex is perfectly fine and normal. This is a very simple thing to refute inasmuch as we know the intent of the men of the city was to have sex with the men who had come to rescue Lot. That they were willing to do it forcibly I think goes without question; however, it would be difficult to refute that they would have relented if they'd found willing partners. They were driven strictly by their peculiar sexual desires, desires the bible calls abominable, which Leviticus 13 and Leviticus 20 corroborate.

Actually, the Bible provides the justification for defining sodomy the way it has been done. ANY sex outside of marriage and outside of the purpose of procreation is seen as unnatural and outside of the will of God. That is why I don't give two craps when most folk try to reference the Bible in this respect. They generally are people who had plenty of premarital sex, or engaged in sex acts outside of vaginal sex, or committed adultery, or were divorced. etc. People like to interpret the Bible to suit their own prejudices and so the whole idea that the word "sodomite" is watered down is kind of ridiculous to me. Particularly since the Jewish interpretation of the story of Sodom has nothing to do with homosexuality but with inhospitality. People are entitled to believe what they want but trying to reference the story of Sodom to dictate whether a scene of GANG RAPE is an example of homosexuality is kind of ridiculous in itself. I would think the RAPE might be more at issue but if people want to reference Leviticus to push their position I say go ahead but if you are wearing any polyester or eating any shell fish, you are kind of a hypocrite.
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

Really? NAMBLA IS a Homosexual organization. And you act like laws can never change to protect the age of consent. Under aged girls now have the right to seek an abortion without their parents knowing. Did most see that coming 10 years ago? In Mexico consensual sex between a 12 and 18 year old is not considered illegal.

You have become extremely circular and predictable in your repeated attempts to equate same-sex marriage with pedophilia.

Men have been marrying women since the dawn of time and there is still an age of consent. In fact it's only been relatively recent that the age for consent has been raised, NOT lowered.

Allowing same-sex marriage isn't going to shift age of consent laws. It's not going to happen no matter how much you insist it will.

History has proven that you are wrong here. We protect our children.

Do you know what ages were considered socially acceptable for marriage during biblical times? Much younger than today's standards.

Stop the circular repeating statements that carry no credibility.
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

You have become extremely circular and predictable in your repeated attempts to equate same-sex marriage with pedophilia.

Men have been marrying women since the dawn of time and there is still an age of consent. In fact it's only been relatively recent that the age for consent has been raised, NOT lowered.

Allowing same-sex marriage isn't going to shift age of consent laws. It's not going to happen no matter how much you insist it will.

History has proven that you are wrong here. We protect our children.

Do you know what ages were considered socially acceptable for marriage during biblical times? Much younger than today's standards.

Stop the circular repeating statements that carry no credibility.

I'm not connecting same sex marriage with pedophilia. But NAMBLA gives a clear connection between pedophilia and homosexuality.

My argument has always been the changing of the LAW to redefine marriage and how it opens the doors to other sexual orientations and their claim to "civil rights".

And in response about age of consent never changing........A lot folks never thought marriage would ever be redefined either.
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

The definition of marriage has forever changed because of same sex marriage.
I just gave you a valid example how through the children books that are being written and placed in the libraries of our schools promote man boy relationships. A good portion of the next generation is not going to see any thing wrong with it due to the influences they are receiving in our public schools. At the very least it is going to confuse them. And just like you don't see anything wrong with a same sex relationships they aren't going to see anything wrong with a man/boy relationship. The foundation is being laid for it just like the acceptance of gay marriage was through media and other outlets to be the new norm. It's coming..... so where do you draw the line?

It wasn't as valid as you think it was.
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

I'm not connecting same sex marriage with pedophilia. But NAMBLA gives a clear connection between pedophilia with homosexuality.

My argument has always been the changing of the LAW to redefine marriage and how it opens the doors to other sexual orientations and their claim to "civil rights".

A lot folks never thought marriage would ever be redefined either.

How come interracial marriage didn't open the doors for pedophilia?
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

I'm not connecting same sex marriage with pedophilia. But NAMBLA gives a clear connection between pedophilia and homosexuality.


And Westboro Baptists are clearly connected to Christianity. Right?

NAMBLA is pedophiles.

There are straight pedophiles. In fact most pedophiles are straight.

Therefore straight marriage is far more a threat to unleashing social acceptance of pedophilia than same-sex marriage.


YOU FAIL on every level.

Stop associating same-sex marriage with NAMBLA and therefore trying to link same-sex marriage with socially acceptable pedophilia.

Straight people pose far more danger to children than gay people do. Now that's FACT.
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

This exemplifies the problem with many posts from "antis" on this topic. They confuse providing facts with encouraging. In our schools, providing facts, such as teaching that there is nothing dangerous about homosexuality (there IS something dangerous about risky sexual behavior regardless of orientation) and that homosexuality is not a disorder (proven through research since the '60's), amongst other pieces of information does not equate to promoting it any more than providing information about sexual activity promotes having sex. There is no reason to promote any kind of sexual activity or orientation. They exist. It is the school's job to provide information, which is what they do.
Well, I am sure you feel providing condoms are not encouraging kids to have sex either. If you handed out candy bars, think that might encourage them to eat them?

I am sure that you feel it justified that when schools go into direct opposition to many parents, as well as their churches, who are trying to, have the exclusive full right to, teach their kids about morality as they see it…then the majority of school children, being public school students, attend where they teach otherwise, in direct contradiction to their parents and their faith. I am sure you must think this sexual, as well as all the other confusions, confusion that is inevitably created is good for kids.

Our kids need none of this information provided in our schools and you know it.

What, to you, is not encouragement we would certainly differ on. Besides which, I have seen it proven to you on here, that the decision to withdraw homosexuality as a disorder was far more a political decision than anything else.

You having brought it up, I would also suggest, tho a bit off topic here, that since we have been giving explicit sex education classes that these, indeed, have taken away much of the anxiety, the fear that was associated with sex to the uninitiated. This encouraged far more promiscuity among those student populations. So education along with its co-horts in crime, our heavily degenerate and left biased mass media… as well as openly disgraceful conduct of many of our leaders [ think BJs didn’t become a lot more common, almost ubiquitous, with under aged boys and girls after the BJ Clinton/Monica episode? ] we have an unneccessarily sexed up student population...like they needed more encouragement. Under aged/teenage sex does not hurt anything either, right? Just leads to more sexually transmitted diseases, unwanted pregnancies, abortions, depression/frustration/dissatisfaction long term and living in poverty for most of those who choose to keep their children in that unfortunate circumstance.

IT IS NOT A SCHOOL’S JOB TO INDOCTRINATE OUR CHILDREN WITH YOUR SIDE'S BELIEF SYSTEMS. Anymore than you might not support, if the other side got its way and took over education the way the left has then started teaching, say religious beliefs… Your belief system should not hold sway just because there was a vacuum created, sorry.



This is interesting. I have debated this topic for quite some time and have always found it to be the dogmatic conservatives who have little knowledge on this topic, argue positions using logical fallacies, and make ad homs when backed into a corner after their arguments have been debunked. There are plenty of threads on this topic that prove me correct on this.
Yeah, well, you have not debated many folks on that “other side” very much then. I also am aware from previous debate, that anything you do not believe magically becomes a "logical fallacy". Ad homs and straw men are the libs go to arguments, besides the “just shut up, you racist, homophobe, misogynist…”you can take your pick from a long list of the shut-up-added-to-ad homs utilized by libs. Why don’t you go back and add up all the ad homs by libs vs cons and divide by how many of from each side....and I am pretty sure there will be far more by libs. But you can prove me wrong, its your statement to back up or not. My impression is you won’t.



It is important to not confuse one's beliefs with factual information. You certainly can believe what you want; that does not mean that these beliefs translate into facts.
Right back at ya Cap’n.:agree
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom