• 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]

Ontologuy said:
You say "good to know", but you don't apologize for you purposeful attempt at distortion.
Click to expand...

Since it wasn't purposeful, there is no reason to apologize. I admitted that I made an error.

Then you go on to paranoid-suggest that "how do we really know it wasn't you -- they sound like you". :roll:
Click to expand...

I saw no actual usage of the word, other than some anonymous posters. Since you have proven that you post dishonestly, the supposition that you could be linking to your own posts is not so absurd. Feel free to post any legitimate source that uses the term, and I will retract.

Then you again call the word "homarriage" a theory, which is an obviously false assertion. The word isn't a "theory", it's simply a coined term, not a "theory" at all, clearly revealing that you don't know what a "theory" truly is. :lol:
Click to expand...

Of course it's a theory. It's a theory that they word has actual and appropriate usage.

The rest of your post is simply more error-based posturing.
Click to expand...

The rest of my post demonstrated that you have no facts to back up your position.

What this all does prove is that, once again, you lost on point, and you're unable to admit it and then simply let go.
Click to expand...

What it proves it that, once again, I showed you to be in error and to be unable to back your positions with facts. You should be used to this by now.
 
Ontologuy said:
Again, obviously false.

You mistake "usage" for both "definition" and "true meaning", two obviously different things.

I've pointed out the details of your mistake above.
Click to expand...

You have done nothing of the sort. You have failed, as usual, to prove anything I said to be incorrect.
 
Bronson said:
He doesn't know how to have a discussion without lying and personally attacking someone
Click to expand...

Just because you are upset that I embarrass you every time we discuss this topic is no reason to make stuff up.
 
Bronson said:
Your premise is an emotional argument. Not a scientific one.

There is no gay gene.
Click to expand...

Your position is not a scientific one, but nothing but an unproven opinion. You don't seem to understand the concept of how to prove or disprove a hypothesis.

No gay gene has been discovered.
 
Bronson said:
Gay "Marriage" is an inferior form of pretend marriage. It's a sham. It doesn't deserve to be in the same discussion as the tradition of marriage, which brings the opposite sexes together to form one union. From this union, new life is created with unique DNA, formed from the DNA of that child's biological parents. This all has significant social and economic purposes that are unique to this institution. Not the Frankenstein experiments that the LGBT community has to engage in to try and pass themselves off as "normal".

If that hurts your feelings I don't care. Live with it.
Click to expand...

This is nothing but opinion based on no facts whatsoever. Since we know that procreation is not a requirement for marriage, and we know that society supports marriage for the rearing of children, the health of the individuals, and for the stability of the individuals, and has nothing to do with procreation, we know that what you said above is invalid.

If that hurts your feelings I don't care. Live with it.
 
Deuce said:
I disagree. This cedes ground to the religious that they own the word. They do not.
Click to expand...

I disagree. It creates a reasonable separation between the two institutions and is in line with the legal definition of marriage. It also prevents potential accusations of discrimination by churches which, legally would hold no water anyway.
 
Bronson said:
Infertile couples don't change the definition of marriage from man + woman to man + ? or woman + ?. It's still XX + XY

They meet the existing criteria. Marriage was created for purposeful and specific social, economic and biological reasons. It's the oldest known institution in human history. It's instinctual and biological in animals (unlike homosexuality). If homosexual sex was genetic and planned, evolution would have found a use for it a long time ago and adapted accordingly. Animals in the wild engage in sodomy and other filthy behaviors because of dominance, clash of senses. In other words, it's not rational. There isn't a homosexual instinct in animals to mate.
Click to expand...

This has already been refuted several times. Firstly, homosexuality is found in animals and is instinctual and biological... since animals don't have the ability to reason. This is a VERY basic biological concept. Next, pleasure and pair-bonding are also instincts and desires seen in both animals and humans (higher animals). Finally, not all sexual activity has the purpose of mating. Some is to provide pleasure. We see this with animals who have sexual activity when mating is not possible (both in same sex and opposite sex actions) and in humans for a variety of reasons. The only thing in your entire post that you got right is that sometimes, in very specific situations, same sex sexual behavior in heterosexuals will occur to create dominance.

Other than that one thing, nothing else in your post has any validity.
 
Bronson said:
You keep claiming it's not true doesn't make it false

It is absolutely true, despite what your post-modernism gobbly-gook perception believes
Click to expand...

Since you haven't proven it with facts or logic, your argument is invalid.
 
vesper said:
And your argument is one used by one who is blind in one eye and can't see out of the other. There are such things as slippery slopes.
Click to expand...

nope every single one you brought up factually failed in this debate, EVERY ONE
you haven provided ONE single example of equal rights for gays leading to other things solely because of equal rights for gays. You have proven you have no clue what a slipper slope is and its hilarious. its pure uneducated ignorance of this subject or dishonesty, pick one.
 
AGENT J said:
nope every single one you brought up factually failed in this debate, EVERY ONE
you haven provided ONE single example of equal rights for gays leading to other things solely because of equal rights for gays. You have proven you have no clue what a slipper slope is and its hilarious. its pure uneducated ignorance of this subject or dishonesty, pick one.
Click to expand...

Well, the concept is rather new in terms of what politicians can do to distort it in the future...We will have to wait and see....Personally, I don't think that it will cause much either, other than possible rhetorical blather from both sides....If both sides would just calm down a little, we could possibly live and let live, but not as long as hyperbolic rhetoric is involved.
 
j-mac said:
Well, the concept is rather new in terms of what politicians can do to distort it in the future...We will have to wait and see....Personally, I don't think that it will cause much either, other than possible rhetorical blather from both sides....If both sides would just calm down a little, we could possibly live and let live, but not as long as hyperbolic rhetoric is involved.
Click to expand...

youll have to give me an example of hyperbolic rhetoric for the pro-equal rights for gays side, not saying it doesnt exists because retards exist in all groups but i haven't seen any that i recall.

but there a lot on the side that wants to discriminate and not allow equal rights for gays.

If people would just not get so threatened over other americans having equla rights things would be just fine. Thats how you live and let live but SOME dont want that.
 
AGENT J said:
youll have to give me an example of hyperbolic rhetoric for the pro-equal rights for gays side, not saying it doesnt exists because retards exist in all groups but i haven't seen any that i recall.

but there a lot on the side that wants to discriminate and not allow equal rights for gays.

If people would just not get so threatened over other americans having equla rights things would be just fine. Thats how you live and let live but SOME dont want that.
Click to expand...

We are a habitual species, that doesn't react well to change. But an example in my mind would be in the comparison of Gay rights to the struggle of civil rights that the black community have gone through.
 
j-mac said:
We are a habitual species, that doesn't react well to change. But an example in my mind would be in the comparison of Gay rights to the struggle of civil rights that the black community have gone through.
Click to expand...

thats an example of hyperbole? wow sorry its not, at least not how you presented. If somebody would say its an "identical" struggle then yes absolutely id agree with you

but they are both civil rights, equality and discrimination issues. and to further that point many black people have used the reference themselves even those not exactly pro-gay and said that while they may not agree with it they could never deny them rights the same way their ancestors were.

gays have been killed, beat, assaulted, fired, disowned, abandon, tortured, not hired, discriminated against, denied rights, branded and denied equality simply for being gay. again not IDENTICAL to what was done to blacks at all but the civil rights and equality moment comparison is definitely there.

and since the OP article is written by a black man equating the likeness to it id say there no hyperbole at all unless one says its identical.

SO again do you have an examples?
 
AGENT J said:
nope every single one you brought up factually failed in this debate, EVERY ONE
you haven provided ONE single example of equal rights for gays leading to other things solely because of equal rights for gays. You have proven you have no clue what a slipper slope is and its hilarious. its pure uneducated ignorance of this subject or dishonesty, pick one.
Click to expand...
You are certainly entitled to your opinion. But we live with the consequences of many laws that were based in emotion and not logic and end up causing greater harm. I personally see same sex marriage to be one such law.
 
vesper said:
1.)You are certainly entitled to your opinion. But we live with the consequences of many laws that were based in emotion and not logic and end up causing greater harm.
2.)I personally see same sex marriage to be one such law.
Click to expand...

1.)its not an opinion you FACTUALLY have not provided and successful slipper slop argument.

try to understand uner laws and precedence this is a true or false thing, its not opinion base.

now if you want to have an opinion saying you dont like gays having equal rights thats your choice but when you say equal rights for gays will lead to other things based solely on equal rights for gays arguments/precedence you are factually wrong and this thread proves that.

as always if you disagree please provide these factual slipper slope arguments now

2.) you keep saying this but yet cant support it anyway. Equal rights is not going to cause great harm in anyway what so ever, its a silly illogical strawman and scare tactic that nobody honest, educated and objective buys.
 
AGENT J said:
1.)its not an opinion you FACTUALLY have not provided and successful slipper slop argument.

try to understand uner laws and precedence this is a true or false thing, its not opinion base.

now if you want to have an opinion saying you dont like gays having equal rights thats your choice but when you say equal rights for gays will lead to other things based solely on equal rights for gays arguments/precedence you are factually wrong and this thread proves that.

as always if you disagree please provide these factual slipper slope arguments now

2.) you keep saying this but yet cant support it anyway. Equal rights is not going to cause great harm in anyway what so ever, its a silly illogical strawman and scare tactic that nobody honest, educated and objective buys.
Click to expand...

I think I have presented a very valid slippery slope argument. Conjecture? yes but time will tell and with the current problems we have with the judiciary branch of government legislating from the bench, my slippery slope argument is a probable one.
 
Last edited:
vesper said:
1.)I think I have presented a very valid slippery slope argument. Conjecture? yes but time will tell and with the current problems we have with the judiciary branch of government legislating from the bench, my slippery slope argument is a probable one.
Click to expand...

im sure you think that but facts prove you have not
theres nothign solely offering equal rights to gays does to other marriages, nothing

as always if you disagree please provide these factual slipper slope arguments now
 
AGENT J said:
nope every single one you brought up factually failed in this debate, EVERY ONE
you haven provided ONE single example of equal rights for gays leading to other things solely because of equal rights for gays. You have proven you have no clue what a slipper slope is and its hilarious. its pure uneducated ignorance of this subject or dishonesty, pick one.
Click to expand...

Yeah, with the way some keep bringing this up, you'd think polygamy incest and bestiality would be legal in MA Iowa NY etc by now.
 
chromium said:
Yeah, with the way some keep bringing this up, you'd think polygamy incest and bestiality would be legal in MA Iowa NY etc by now.
Click to expand...

yeah its weird i dont get how a persons hate, bigotry and or ignorance could even lead them to believe its a slippery slope its dumb.
 
AGENT J said:
yeah its weird i dont get how a persons hate, bigotry and or ignorance could even lead them to believe its a slippery slope its dumb.
Click to expand...

40 years ago no one thought we'd fall this far down the slope. You truly believe we've reached the bottom of that hill and that no further changes to marriage will occur? :roll:
 
clownboy said:
40 years ago no one thought we'd fall this far down the slope. You truly believe we've reached the bottom of that hill and that no further changes to marriage will occur? :roll:
Click to expand...

again, thank you for proving you have no clue what a slippery slope argument is, please continue to do this, its funny every time.
 
AGENT J said:
again, thank you for proving you have no clue what a slippery slope argument is, please continue to do this, its funny every time.
Click to expand...

You're too uneducated to make comments like this without exposing yourself yet again to the forum as a know nothing know it all. 40-50 years ago was the debate about openning marriage to cousins. Many states started to allow it.
 
clownboy said:
You're too uneducated to make comments like this without exposing yourself yet again to the forum as a know nothing know it all. 40-50 years ago was the debate about openning marriage to cousins. Many states started to allow it.
Click to expand...

a failed insult only further shows your desperation, thank again for proving you have no clue what a slippery slope is.

before that (40-50) years ago cousins could already marry, so whats that? a slippery mountain? you fail again and facts destroy you posts again

also before you tired failed insults try to make sure you have and education of the topic being discussed what so ever so your posts dont fail this bad.
tell me that cool line about education and exposing oneself again? yep thats what YOU just did. WOW

and as always if you disagree PLEASE show us any factual logic connecting equal rights being granted to gays leading to a slippery slope of something else, we cant wait to read it!
 
You rarely use any sort of fact, apparently it's what you have named your OPINION. At issue isn't "equal rights being granted to gays" but allowing gay marriage. It's hilarious how you accuse others of the very behavior you display religiously.
 
Why isnt interracial marriage a slippery slope?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom