• 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!

Appeals court upholds laws against gay marriage in Michigan, 3 other states

CanadaJohn said:
Homosexuals and heterosexuals are "equally normal" and there are only two ways of having the government recognize that - a) get out of the marriage business and stop setting social policy through the tax code or b) recognize all codified relationships as equal as they relate to access to benefits under the tax code.
Click to expand...

Unless we want to redefine "normal", it isn't possible to argue that homosexuality is normal, let alone "equally normal".

nor·mal
ˈnôrməl/Submit
adjective
1.
conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected.
"it's quite normal for puppies to bolt their food"
synonyms: usual, standard, ordinary, customary, conventional, habitual, accustomed, expected, wonted; More
antonyms: unusual
(of a person) free from physical or mental disorders.
2.
technical
(of a line, ray, or other linear feature) intersecting a given line or surface at right angles.
3.
MEDICINE
(of a salt solution) containing the same salt concentration as the blood.
CHEMISTRYdated
(of a solution) containing one gram-equivalent of solute per liter.
4.
GEOLOGY
denoting a fault or faulting in which a relative downward movement occurred in the strata situated on the upper side of the fault plane.
noun
noun: normal; plural noun: normals
1.
the usual, average, or typical state or condition.
"her temperature was above normal"
informal
a person who is conventional or healthy.
2.
technical
a line at right angles to a given line or surface.
Origin

mid 17th century (in the sense ‘right-angled’): from Latin normalis, from norma ‘carpenter's square’ (see norm). Current senses date from the early 19th century.
Translate normal to
Use over time for: normal
Click to expand...

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing that anything that isn't "normal" is wrong, but I think enough words have been abused for the sake of homosexuality already and that we shouldn't add "normal" to the list of words that must be redefined in order to appease.
 
Papa bull said:
Unless we want to redefine "normal", it isn't possible to argue that homosexuality is normal, let alone "equally normal".



Now don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing that anything that isn't "normal" is wrong, but I think enough words have been abused for the sake of homosexuality already and that we shouldn't add "normal" to the list of words that must be redefined in order to appease.
Click to expand...

There's no need to abuse any words provided that there's no need to label homosexuality in derogatory terms. It's normal, from my perspective, because there are lots of examples of homosexual behaviour throughout nature. I don't consider a minority, regardless of the category, to be abnormal. They're just simply different. Not sure what makes my life's normal any more normal than another person's normal. As long as all individuals respect all individuals, nobody loses out.
 
CanadaJohn said:
There's no need to abuse any words provided that there's no need to label homosexuality in derogatory terms. It's normal, from my perspective, because there are lots of examples of homosexual behaviour throughout nature. I don't consider a minority, regardless of the category, to be abnormal.
Click to expand...
Are there any human characterisics you would consider not to be normal? If the litmus is whether there are lots of examples in nature, it seems to me that anything abnormal must be normal. Abnormal size, abnormal strength, abnormal intelligence, abnormal pigmentation, abnormal genetic conditions, abnormal psychology (i.e. mental illness) would all be "normal" by that definition. I'm hard pressed to think of anything that isn't (which would make the word meaningless).
 
Last edited:
CanadaJohn said:
There's no need to abuse any words provided that there's no need to label homosexuality in derogatory terms. It's normal, from my perspective, because there are lots of examples of homosexual behaviour throughout nature. I don't consider a minority, regardless of the category, to be abnormal. They're just simply different. Not sure what makes my life's normal any more normal than another person's normal. As long as all individuals respect all individuals, nobody loses out.
Click to expand...

There are many examples of homosexual behavior but there are extroardinarily few examples of homosexual pair-bonding in animals that mate for life. I don't see any natural example of anything that would represent a model for homosexual marriage.
 
roguenuke said:
Are you saying that adoption isn't a legal kinship as well? Plus that kinship exists for the length of the marriage (kinship ties to in laws can actually last longer than a marriage in some places).

But birth certificates mainly identify who your parents are and through that link you legally to other relatives.
Click to expand...

I'm saying there isn't a genetic lineage in an adoption.
 
Papa bull said:
The interesting thing is that these things have to do with having a partner; not a marriage license. There are a LOT of people living together that aren't married - and they get the same benefits. Marriage doesn't bring these benefits. Being a stable person capable of having a working relationship with someone else does.
Click to expand...

No, obviously a piece of paper is the best medicine known to man! :lol:
 
Papa bull said:
The interesting thing is that these things have to do with having a partner; not a marriage license. There are a LOT of people living together that aren't married - and they get the same benefits. Marriage doesn't bring these benefits. Being a stable person capable of having a working relationship with someone else does.
Click to expand...

No actually most don't get those same benefits. There is a noted difference between those who are married and those just cohabiting, since it is almost impossible to separate the commitment level in cohabitation, to find out how committed they really are.
 
jmotivator said:
I'm saying there isn't a genetic lineage in an adoption.
Click to expand...

Which has nothing to do with why you would track legal relationships. Adopted children and their children are still considered legal relations of their adopting parents.
 
roguenuke said:
No actually most don't get those same benefits. There is a noted difference between those who are married and those just cohabiting, since it is almost impossible to separate the commitment level in cohabitation, to find out how committed they really are.
Click to expand...

Great. Post the evidence that supports your assertion that living in a committed relationship doesn't bring most of the benefits of marriage without a piece of paper stamped by some official sanctioning it. Thanks.
 
roguenuke said:
Which has nothing to do with why you would track legal relationships. Adopted children and their children are still considered legal relations of their adopting parents.
Click to expand...

Genealogy tracks parents insofar as they share genetic code with their offspring. Genealogy is mostly interested in blood relationships and heterosexual marriage produces genetic offspring that connect the married couple. This can't happen with homosexual relationships.

But your argument is rather circular. You are essentially saying that the state has an interest in tracking legal relationships that the state has made into legal relationships. You need to answer why the state needs marriage to be legally binding in the first place.
 
Papa bull said:
3. Because the real goal is "normalization" of homosexuality, not "equal rights", which already exist.
Click to expand...

If that's true, why wouldn't more than 10% marry? Don't you think that would "normalize" it? Trust me though, for our own sanity we have to early on stop giving a damn what heteros think about us.

Even if it were true, what's wrong it being normalized? You keep throwing out this albatross without explaining what's so terrible about it.
 
chromium said:
If that's true, why wouldn't more than 10% marry? Don't you think that would "normalize" it? Trust me though, for our own sanity we have to early on stop giving a damn what heteros think about us.

Even if it were true, what's wrong it being normalized? You keep throwing out this albatross without explaining what's so terrible about it.
Click to expand...

For the most part, "heteros" only think about you when you make them think about you. Demanding that marriage be redefined to make it genderless would be one of those things that makes heteros "think about you".

The reason why less than 10% of homosexuals marry in countries where homosexual marriages are sanctioned is because most homosexuals don't want to be married. They just want to say that it's no different than heterosexuality. Now "why" that would be is something we'll never be able to discuss honestly, I'm sure, but a good clue would be that homosexuals would be very, very happy if more people were homosexual. As much pissing and moaning about how hard life is as a homosexual and "why would anyone choose this sort of awful life" hand-wringing, any mention of a genetic fix that would prevent babies from being homosexual brings down hell's fury from homosexuals on anyone suggesting such an awful thing. That should be enough to point people toward the truth of the matter. Homosexuals want to encourage homosexuality. And "normalizing" homosexuality makes it easier to do that. My own brother has tried the "recruitment" routine. I still remember the big kerfuffle when his "curious" boyfriend wouldn't tell his parents that he was queer. His boyfriend gave up the homosexual experimentation after that and went on to get married and start a family.

This is the dirty secret that homosexuals will never admit as long as there are any states that maintain traditional marriage requirements. It's all about normalization of homosexuality and the reason that's so important is because it makes it easier to recruit anyone that's confused or weak minded. It means a larger pool of potential sex partners. It means more members of the "GLBT community".
 
Papa bull said:
For the most part, "heteros" only think about you when you make them think about you. Demanding that marriage be redefined to make it genderless would be one of those things that makes heteros "think about you".

The reason why less than 10% of homosexuals marry in countries where homosexual marriages are sanctioned is because most homosexuals don't want to be married. They just want to say that it's no different than heterosexuality. Now "why" that would be is something we'll never be able to discuss honestly, I'm sure, but a good clue would be that homosexuals would be very, very happy if more people were homosexual. As much pissing and moaning about how hard life is as a homosexual and "why would anyone choose this sort of awful life" hand-wringing, any mention of a genetic fix that would prevent babies from being homosexual brings down hell's fury from homosexuals on anyone suggesting such an awful thing. That should be enough to point people toward the truth of the matter. Homosexuals want to encourage homosexuality. And "normalizing" homosexuality makes it easier to do that. My own brother has tried the "recruitment" routine. I still remember the big kerfuffle when his "curious" boyfriend wouldn't tell his parents that he was queer. His boyfriend gave up the homosexual experimentation after that and went on to get married and start a family.

This is the dirty secret that homosexuals will never admit as long as there are any states that maintain traditional marriage requirements. It's all about normalization of homosexuality and the reason that's so important is because it makes it easier to recruit anyone that's confused or weak minded. It means a larger pool of potential sex partners. It means more members of the "GLBT community".
Click to expand...

And have you been "recruited?"

By the way, I think you could have squeezed at least six more uses of the word "homosexual" into your post.
 
Cardinal said:
And have you been "recruited?"

By the way, I think you could have squeezed at least six more uses of the word "homosexual" into your post.
Click to expand...

I probably could have if squeezing more uses for the word homosexual was important. And no, I wasn't recruited, but more than one homosexual gave it a try. Living in the French Quarter of New Orleans, Midtown, Atlanta and having a militant homosexual brother meant lots of exposure to "the GLBT community".
 
Papa bull said:
I probably could have if squeezing more uses for the word homosexual was important. And no, I wasn't recruited, but more than one homosexual gave it a try. Living in the French Quarter of New Orleans, Midtown, Atlanta and having a militant homosexual brother meant lots of exposure to "the GLBT community".
Click to expand...

So some gay dudes hit on you.
 
Papa bull said:
If you can't refute it, trivialize it.

Excellent.
Click to expand...

I don't mean to trivialize your pain. Being hit on by a guy must have been, like, the worst thing ever. We're just happy you made it through with your sanity intact
 
Cardinal said:
Well, it's really really trivial.
Click to expand...

Thank you so much for sharing.
good%20job.gif
 
Papa bull said:
For the most part, "heteros" only think about you when you make them think about you. Demanding that marriage be redefined to make it genderless would be one of those things that makes heteros "think about you".

The reason why less than 10% of homosexuals marry in countries where homosexual marriages are sanctioned is because most homosexuals don't want to be married. They just want to say that it's no different than heterosexuality. Now "why" that would be is something we'll never be able to discuss honestly, I'm sure, but a good clue would be that homosexuals would be very, very happy if more people were homosexual. As much pissing and moaning about how hard life is as a homosexual and "why would anyone choose this sort of awful life" hand-wringing, any mention of a genetic fix that would prevent babies from being homosexual brings down hell's fury from homosexuals on anyone suggesting such an awful thing. That should be enough to point people toward the truth of the matter. Homosexuals want to encourage homosexuality. And "normalizing" homosexuality makes it easier to do that. My own brother has tried the "recruitment" routine. I still remember the big kerfuffle when his "curious" boyfriend wouldn't tell his parents that he was queer. His boyfriend gave up the homosexual experimentation after that and went on to get married and start a family.

This is the dirty secret that homosexuals will never admit as long as there are any states that maintain traditional marriage requirements. It's all about normalization of homosexuality and the reason that's so important is because it makes it easier to recruit anyone that's confused or weak minded. It means a larger pool of potential sex partners. It means more members of the "GLBT community".
Click to expand...

You seem to spend a lot of time conjuring up gay fantasies.
 
Papa bull said:
Thank you so much for sharing.
good%20job.gif
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, that wasn't very sensitive of me. What you went through was a very traumatic experience.
 
Cardinal said:
I don't mean to trivialize your pain. Being hit on by a guy must have been, like, the worst thing ever. We're just happy you made it through with your sanity intact
Click to expand...

A male friend of mine hitch hiked a ride home from a gay dude. Dude kissed him unexpectedly and my friend had to chin check him. He came home angry and almost in tears, I almost crapped myself laughing inside.
 
Verax said:
You seem to spend a lot of time conjuring up gay fantasies.
Click to expand...

I see you don't have anything to say about the actual topic and would really just prefer to insult me personally. Excellent.
 
Papa bull said:
I see you don't have anything to say about the actual topic and would really just prefer to insult me personally. Excellent.
Click to expand...

I couldn't resist, you just put it all out there. Besides, don't you think these elaborate plots of yours are a little flaky? Are groups of people really this organized and sinister? Don't you think its probably more simple like they just want to have equal rights and be treated like everyone else?
 
Verax said:
A male friend of mine hitch hiked a ride home from a gay dude. Dude kissed him unexpectedly and my friend had to chin check him. He came home angry and almost in tears, I almost crapped myself laughing inside.
Click to expand...

It reminds me of something I heard about homophobia, which is that it's essentially a man's fear of being on the business end of the treatment he regularly doles out to women.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom