• 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!

DC City Council votes to legalize gay marriage

I don't know that anyone has claimed that "only married people have/raise children" or that "everyone who gets married has children" so your observations are largely irrelevant.

Procreation is always brought up by the anti-GM group as a reason to deny gays the right to marry their partner. Despite the fact that not everyone that gets married has or wants or can have kids. They act as if its the only reason to marry.
 
It could also have been designed to battle invisible leprechauns, but as with most science, we should put stock in what's likely, not what's possible.

Reality: People piss which gets rid of toxins in the body.
 
So we reproduced asexually until then?

Actually there are species on this planet that do reproduce asexually. So its not like it was necessary that we were designed to procreate the way we do. Thats actually kind of indirect evidence that us procreating the way we do is a side effect of how our organs are placed. At least it could be argued that way. Of course we'll never really know. Only way to know is to ask who ever it was that designed us. GL on that though.

Edit note: This would actualy kind of make a possibly interesting discussion for a new thread. :D
 
Last edited:
Actually there are species on this planet that do reproduce asexually. So its not like it was necessary that we were designed to procreate the way we do. Thats actually kind of indirect evidence that us procreating the way we do is a side effect of how our organs are placed. At least it could be argued that way. Of course we'll never really know. Only way to know is to ask who ever it was that designed us. GL on that though.

Edit note: This would actualy kind of make a possibly interesting discussion for a new thread. :D

It would! Go for it!
 
Procreation is always brought up by the anti-GM group as a reason to deny gays the right to marry their partner. Despite the fact that not everyone that gets married has or wants or can have kids. They act as if its the only reason to marry.
It's a major reason for why the state should recognize marriage.
 
It's a major reason for why the state should recognize marriage.

No it isn't. The rearing of children is a major reason why the state should recognize marriage. There is a difference.
 
Nothing. That's the point.
Well that's *MY* point... but if we're all in agreement than it begs the question, why bother bringing up the whole pissing/toxins thing in the first place?
 
Well that's *MY* point... but if we're all in agreement than it begs the question, why bother bringing up the whole pissing/toxins thing in the first place?

Because it demonstrates the fallacy that sexual organs were designed only for sex. There are other purposes for those organs and until the designer explains precisely what their purpose is, showing that there is more that one use for them negates that part of the "anti" position.
 
Because it demonstrates the fallacy that sexual organs were designed only for sex. There are other purposes for those organs.
This may surprise you, but women don't pee out their vagina, or have intercourse using their urethras.

and until the designer explains precisely what their purpose is, showing that there is more that one use for them negates that part of the "anti" position.
Suggesting that people wait until a "designer" explains nature to us doesn't "negate the anti position" so much as reveal that you have little understanding of how science works.
 
Sure it is. It's good for society when people want to dedicate their lives to each other and start a family.

Unfortunately for Society, Half or more of those who make the "dedication" fail.
 
This may surprise you, but women don't pee out their vagina, or have intercourse using their urethras.

Really? I didn't know that. :roll: Patronizing won't get you very far with me. The vagina has purposes other than sexual intercourse. I would think you would know that.


Suggesting that people wait until a "designer" explains nature to us doesn't "negate the anti position" so much as reveal that you have little understanding of how science works.

No, it reveals that you cannot counter this and do not understand how logic in debate works.
 
Sure it is. It's good for society when people want to dedicate their lives to each other and start a family.

Try quoting the rest of my post for accuracy next time. Not doing so makes you look dishonest.
 
God must be a Civil Engineer. Who else would run waste removal right through a recreational area...
 
God must be a Civil Engineer. Who else would run waste removal right through a recreational area...

Now, Epic. This is the kind of humorous post that is NOT trolling. Good job. :mrgreen:
 
Try quoting the rest of my post for accuracy next time. Not doing so makes you look dishonest.
The second part of your post wasn't relevant. The two aren't mutually exclusive -and although I agree that it's beneficial- whether or not that's the case is a different issue that has little bearing on what i said.
 
wait wait wait.

Taylor, you think Procreation is the main reason for marriage?
 
The second part of your post wasn't relevant. The two aren't mutually exclusive -and although I agree that it's beneficial- whether or not that's the case is a different issue that has little bearing on what i said.

That's the problem with your position. The second part of my comment is entirely relevant and without it, the position...yours...makes no sense and is irrelevant. So I can understand why you omitted it.
 
With a Federal Government operating from a position that shows lack of a moral compass this is to be expected. For years this perversion has been pushed and lies have created an atmosphere makes it okay to go against nature and claim the individual has no choice because after all they were born that way.

That was a lie when it was first brought forward and research has shown time and again that it is choice.

Sadly the recruiting has become acceptable and with Obama's School Drug and Safety Czar it's not only being pushed but it's getting dangerous as well.

People who lack the ability to deal with the opposite sex turn to being gay because of this inability. In a family of 5 Boys one chose to be gay and it is a direct result of lack skill and tact and not the addition of this magic none existent gene.


I don't just say this take a look for yourself; The Gay Gene?

On July 15, 1993, National Public Radio (NPR) made a dramatic announcement on stations across the country: Was a team of scientists at the National Institutes of Health on the trail of a gene that causes homosexuality? Their report would be published the next day in Science, one of the two most prestigious scientific research journals in the world.[1]
The discussion that followed explained for the listening public the implications of these findings for social attitudes toward homosexuality and for public policy concerning it. Science was on the verge of proving what many had long argued: that homosexuality is innate, genetic and therefore unchangeable-a normal and commonplace variant of human nature. In the light of these findings, surely only the bigoted or ignorant could condemn it in any way.

Shortly after the announcement, amidst a well-orchestrated blizzard of press discussions, there ensued the watershed legal battle over "Proposition 2" in Colorado. (This popularly enacted legislation precluded making sexual orientation the basis of "privileged class" minority status, a status conferred previously only on the basis of immutable factors such as race.)

Among the many crucial issues raised by the legislation was the question as to whether homosexuality was indeed normal, innate and unchangeable. One prominent researcher testified to the court, "I am 99.5% certain that homosexuality is genetic." But this personal opinion was widely misunderstood as "homosexuality is 99.5% genetic," implying that research had demonstrated this. Certainly, that was the message promulgated by NPR's report on the recent research, and by all the discussions that followed. In a few weeks, Newsweek would emblazon across its cover the phrase that would stick in the public mind as the final truth about homosexuality: "Gay Gene?"

Of course, just near the end of the NPR discussion, certain necessary caveats were fleetingly added. But only an expert knew what they meant- that the research actually showed nothing whatever in the way of what was being discussed. The vast majority of listeners would think that homosexuality had been all but conclusively proven to be "genetic." But the real question is whether or not there is such a "gay gene."

In fact, there is not, and the research being promoted as proving that there is provides no supporting evidence. How can this be? In order to understand what is really going on, one needs to understand some little- known features of the emerging study of behavioral genetics (much subtler than the genetics of simple, "Mendelian" traits such as eye color).

When it comes to questions of the genetics of any behavior-homosexuality included-all of the following statements are likely to be at least roughly true:


Such and such a behavior "is genetic";
There are no genes that produce the behavior;
The genes associated with the behavior are found on such and such a chromosome;
The behavior is significantly heritable;
The behavior is not inherited.
The scientific distinctions that make these seeming contradictions perfectly reasonable and consistent seem completely misunderstood by the media who report on them.
 
Really? I didn't know that. :roll: Patronizing won't get you very far with me. The vagina has purposes other than sexual intercourse. I would think you would know that.
So now we're no longer talking about pissing toxins but for any vague purpose. And we're not talking about sexual reproduction but the act of intercouse.

Keep moving those goalposts, you're bound to score on one of these attempts.
 
wait wait wait.

Taylor, you think Procreation is the main reason for marriage?
No, no - I never said "the main reason" and the context was a bit broader than just procreation.
 
With a Federal Government operating from a position that shows lack of a moral compass this is to be expected. For years this perversion has been pushed and lies have created an atmosphere makes it okay to go against nature and claim the individual has no choice because after all they were born that way.

That was a lie when it was first brought forward and research has shown time and again that it is choice.

Sadly the recruiting has become acceptable and with Obama's School Drug and Safety Czar it's not only being pushed but it's getting dangerous as well.

People who lack the ability to deal with the opposite sex turn to being gay because of this inability. In a family of 5 Boys one chose to be gay and it is a direct result of lack skill and tact and not the addition of this magic none existent gene.


I don't just say this take a look for yourself; The Gay Gene?

Another one who doesn't get it.

1) Please show evidence that sexual orientation is a choice.
2) Remember that every time you mention "nature" as "evidence" you commit the appeal to nature logical fallacy and make your position invalid.
3) Please provide evidence that someone who "lacks the ability to deal with the opposite sex" will become gay.

You have posted nothing but fallacies and inaccuracies, Councilman. If you can't provide evidence for what you claimed...which most assuredly you can't, all you have are your own opinions and morality...which added to a quarter are worth...about a quarter.
 
Back
Top Bottom