• 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!

New York State Senate Votes Down Gay Marriage Bill

Re: Lots of people are legally excluded from marriage.

I don't think it's genetic but rather it is simply a chemical reaction. I don't think it's anymore genetic than say...your favorite food or color.

What causes this chemical reaction?
 
Re: Lots of people are legally excluded from marriage.

Thats because it has not been proven to be genetic.



Some courts have claimed this but it is not fact which is the point.



Again, that does not answer my question as to how the arguments would be different for legalizing marriage for either group.

You can claim equal protection law all you like but if you cannot prove how they are different under the law you have no case to make the claim they are different.


I refuse to believe that you are that dense. I think you are being obtuse.

The answer is right before your eyes....unless you continue to refuse to comprehend the texts.
 
Oh look, evidence. See, I back up my claim, you have yet to offer one shred of evidence to support your claim. You have in fact made a statement that is not true, not accurate, not even remotely close to the real world. In point of fact, there are a large number of research papers on the topic of why people have a certain orientation, and a fair number support the idea that orientation is not learned or chosen. With this being the case, your claim that there is no evidence that people are created gay is false.

Care to try again?
To be honest, these findings don't address the issue tex was discussing (evidence of genetics).
 
To be honest, these findings don't address the issue tex was discussing (evidence of genetics).

It clearly is evidence against his claim that gay people are not created. This shows that they may very well be created. If you want to get into genetics, we can start linking to studies showing that gays tend to follow a maternal line. We can show lots of studies which will blow up his theory that gays are not created, a theory which he has offered no evidence to support.
 
Re: Lots of people are legally excluded from marriage.

I refuse to believe that you are that dense. I think you are being obtuse.

The answer is right before your eyes....unless you continue to refuse to comprehend the texts.

Typical Liberal and DD.....When you lose a point tou attack the messenger........:rofl
 
It clearly is evidence against his claim that gay people are not created.
Not sure what you mean by "created." Whether it's nature or nurture or some combination, you could say that it was "created" in some sense. He's talking specifically about a genetic cause, and it's clear that brain scan studies don't address that.

If you want to get into genetics, we can start linking to studies showing that gays tend to follow a maternal line.
I can think of lots of things that might tend to follow a maternal line that have no genetic basis... e.g. cleaning habits, nurturing skills, parenting philosophies, etc.

Like brain scan studies, such research tends to show only correlation.
 
Not sure what you mean by "created." Whether it's nature or nurture or some combination, you could say that it was "created" in some sense. He's talking specifically about a genetic cause, and it's clear that brain scan studies don't address that.

It is his term, not mine. Since the brain scan study suggests that the differences in brain scan go back as early as in the womb, I would say that eliminates most environmental causes.


I can think of lots of things that might tend to follow a maternal line that have no genetic basis... e.g. cleaning habits, nurturing skills, parenting philosophies, etc.

Like brain scan studies, such research tends to show only correlation.

Over multiple generations?
 
We need the, ‘get government out of marriage bill.’
 
Re: Lots of people are legally excluded from marriage.

Typical Liberal and DD.....When you lose a point tou attack the messenger........:rofl

How can I make it any more clear?

Oh...that's right, Navy...you are one of the ones who refuse to educate yourself on Equal Protection analysis. I almost forgot.
(AND....I even gave you a bunch of links that you could use to make it easier).
 
It is his term, not mine. Since the brain scan study suggests that the differences in brain scan go back as early as in the womb, I would say that eliminates most environmental causes.
That's still not saying much. There are countless environmental factors still in play.
 
Geraldo just this morning made the point that the latino population in new york was a big factor because they are, as a group, so traditional. If I remember correctly black churches were identified as a cause of a similar bill in california just a couple of years ago. How ironic if true. All loyal democratic party factions all completely opposed to each other.
 
We need the, ‘get government out of marriage bill.’
Nah. There's a strong societal interest in having government involved. Though I'm sure Tiger is agreeing with you right now, having (potentially) screwed away a good chunk of his fortune.
 
Nah. There's a strong societal interest in having government involved.
For what logical reason? Who are politicians to tell a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, that their love is not on par with a heterosexual couple and therefore marriage is not an option? Leave it to the states.
 
We need the, ‘get government out of marriage bill.’

Exactly right. As We the People, amend your state Constitutions, define marriage as a society, word it properly so no court can overturn or find unconstitutional...and move on.
 
Re: Lots of people are legally excluded from marriage.

How can I make it any more clear?

Oh...that's right, Navy...you are one of the ones who refuse to educate yourself on Equal Protection analysis. I almost forgot.
(AND....I even gave you a bunch of links that you could use to make it easier).

Equal protection was handled by the DOMA...that is still federal law.

No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
The federal government defines marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman.

Why educate on any equal protection clause or "analysis" when it clearly doesn't apply for marriage?
 
For what logical reason? Who are politicians to tell a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, that their love is not on par with a heterosexual couple and therefore marriage is not an option? Leave it to the states.

The government obviously has to be somewhat involved considering that there are legal rights one gains when they are married. Overall, though, I agree that the government shouldn't have a say in who gets to marry who. However, the religious aspect of marriage should be handled by the religions. Churches that refuse to marry gay couples because it is against their ideology should be allowed that right.
 
The government obviously has to be somewhat involved considering that there are legal rights one gains when they are married. Overall, though, I agree that the government shouldn't have a say in who gets to marry who. However, the religious aspect of marriage should be handled by the religions. Churches that refuse to marry gay couples because it is against their ideology should be allowed that right.
I agree completely. Good post.
 
Re: Lots of people are legally excluded from marriage.

How can I make it any more clear?

Oh...that's right, Navy...you are one of the ones who refuse to educate yourself on Equal Protection analysis. I almost forgot.
(AND....I even gave you a bunch of links that you could use to make it easier).

BINGO!!!! your doing it again......Your bias is blinding you..........You can't help yourself.........
 
Re: Lots of people are legally excluded from marriage.

BINGO!!!! your doing it again......Your bias is blinding you..........You can't help yourself.........

Navy, can you honestly not see the irony in this post? :doh :lol:
 
Re: Lots of people are legally excluded from marriage.

Navy, can you honestly not see the irony in this post? :doh :lol:

This post was a response to DD which is none of your business........
 
Re: Lots of people are legally excluded from marriage.

This post was a response to DD which is none of your business........

:rofl And now you are getting defensive? Actually, I'm not sure if you are aware of this or not, but this is a public forum. If you want to submit private messages to other people, feel free to PM them. Otherwise, deal with it. :2wave:
 
For what logical reason? Who are politicians to tell a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, that their love is not on par with a heterosexual couple and therefore marriage is not an option? Leave it to the states.
It is up to the states, is it not? Most have decided to promote heterosexual coupling b/c of its obvious societal benefits. Potential benefits of promoting homosexual coupling is a topic worthy of debate, but I can’t see how "getting government out of marriage" helps the country.
 
Re: Lots of people are legally excluded from marriage.

:rofl And now you are getting defensive? Actually, I'm not sure if you are aware of this or not, but this is a public forum. If you want to submit private messages to other people, feel free to PM them. Otherwise, deal with it. :2wave:

Why don't you address the topic of the thread? Why attack me?
 
Re: Lots of people are legally excluded from marriage.

BINGO!!!! your doing it again......Your bias is blinding you..........You can't help yourself.........

You're doing it again. You can't help yourself.

You're vs. Your

Contraction "You Are" vs. Possessive "Your"

You're illiterate.

Your illiteracy makes angels weep.
 
Back
Top Bottom