• 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

You know removing government will make marriage accessible to all, but without regulation, some companies may still refuse them benefits...maybe not, Point is the government should stop looking at situations where they are being asked to limit, but rather take on more positions where they empower people.
 
Taylor said:
How about addressing what I wrote. "Nope" doesn't do much for the debate.
Click to expand...

Just remember you are debating a guy by his own admission doesn't believe the reproductive organs on men and women are actually designed for procreation.
 
texmaster said:
Just remember you are debating a guy by his own admission doesn't believe the reproductive organs on men and women are actually designed for procreation.
Click to expand...

Why...that's not what he said at all. No, not at all.
 
texmaster said:
Just remember you are debating a guy by his own admission doesn't believe the reproductive organs on men and women are actually designed for procreation.
Click to expand...

It's funny. The reason the penis is elongated and upward facing is so that it fits into the vag, also the mushroom head prevents spillage. If someone could find waste removal purposes for that then I suppose I could be wrong. And why erections? Erections cause muscles to pinch off the bladder, now someone tell me, if not for procreation what purpose would that serve? So you pee in a high arc?
 
texmaster said:
His quote:



I'll accept your apology now.
Click to expand...

You won't be getting an apology because what you said he said was inaccurate.

He never said what you tried to portray him as saying. Learn to ****ing read.
 
texmaster said:
His quote:



I'll accept your apology now.
Click to expand...

Ummm...he challenged you to prove your claim, he did not make a claim himself. One of these days you should take some one up on their challenge to provide proof, or even evidence that one of your claims is accurate. You have yet to ever do that that I have seen.
 
Hatuey said:
Now you're starting to annoy me. Can you explain what part of CR's post my post does not address?

1. CR States that removing the government will make marriage available to all.

2. You state it is already available to all.

3. I show your response to be dishonest.

What are you having trouble comprehending?
Click to expand...
You seem to missing what's being said. CR stated that if we get government out of marriage (i.e. no public marriage), then it will be available to all (i.e. private marriage). My point is that marriage is already "available to all" in that sense - if CR wants private marriage, we've already got it.

1. If we abolish public marriage, then private marriages will be available to all (CR)

2. Private marriages are already available to all (Me)

3: Interracial marriage was once not recognized as a public marriage (You)

Can you see now that your point really didn't address the issue?
 
Last edited:
Taylor said:
You seem to missing what's being said. CR stated that if we get government out of marriage (i.e. no public marriage), then it will be available to all (i.e. private marriage). My point is that marriage is already "available to all" in that sense - if CR wants private marriage, we've already got it.
Click to expand...

Wow. Here. I'll highlight how you just repeated exactly what I said. I'll even color code it :

Now you're starting to annoy me. Can you explain what part of CR's post my post does not address?

1. CR States that removing the government will make marriage available to all.

2. You state it is already available to all.
Click to expand...

CR is talking about marriage also being available to gays. Not your definition of marriage being available to them.

1. If we abolish public marriage, then private marriages will be available to all (CR)

2. Private marriages are already available to all (Me)

3: Interracial marriage was once not recognized as a public marriage (You)

Can you see now that your point really didn't address the issue?
Click to expand...

Your inability to actually comprehend what is being said is really not surprising. I provided an example of your response being a dishonest addressing of the issue. Marriage is available to gay couples much in the way it was to interracial couples 70 years ago. In the sense that it wasn't.
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
So that "open to all" marriage is pretty useless.
Click to expand...
That's my view. I advocate public marriage.

Redress said:
Now, let's look at some concepts. Tell me where I go wrong in your opinion please.

Marriage promotes stable homes.

Children do better in stable homes.

Gays are willing to adopt and foster children in need of stable homes.

Allowing gay marriage results in strengthening our society by giving more children stable homes.
Click to expand...
The logic isn't sound. This doesn't mean your conclusion is wrong, it only means the argument doesn't necessarily support it. The easiest way to explain is to illustrate with an argument of similar structure:

1) Pet ownership promotes happy homes.
2) Children do better in happy homes.
3) Alligators are willing to be pets of children in need of happy homes (especially hungry ones)
4) (Therefore) Allowing alligators as pets results in strengthening society by giving more children happy homes.
 
Last edited:
texmaster said:
Just remember you are debating a guy by his own admission doesn't believe the reproductive organs on men and women are actually designed for procreation.
Click to expand...
I've always thought that the purpose of eyes was to see, but now understand that unless we hear from "The Designer" we don't know if they evolved simply to catch eyelashes that fall out.:lol:
 
EpicDude86 said:
It's funny. The reason the penis is elongated and upward facing is so that it fits into the vag, also the mushroom head prevents spillage. If someone could find waste removal purposes for that then I suppose I could be wrong. And why erections? Erections cause muscles to pinch off the bladder, now someone tell me, if not for procreation what purpose would that serve? So you pee in a high arc?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry. Logic and basic science is not accepted in this debate. You simply do not understand the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior :lol:
 
Taylor said:
I've always thought that the purpose of eyes was to see, but now understand that unless we hear from "The Designer" we don't know if they evolved simply to catch eyelashes that fall out.:lol:
Click to expand...

Hogwash! The eyes were clearly developed for thinking! How could you possibly miss this? :rofl
 
Taylor said:
That's my view. I advocate public marriage.


The logic isn't sound. This doesn't mean your conclusion is wrong, it only means the argument doesn't necessarily support it. The easiest way to explain is to illustrate with an argument of similar structure:

1) Pet ownership promotes happy homes.
2) Children do better in happy homes.
3) Alligators are willing to be pets of children in need of happy homes (especially hungry ones)
4) (Therefore) Allowing alligators as pets results in strengthening society by giving more children happy homes.
Click to expand...

A pet is the name for a wide range of domesticated animals humans can have as companions. Alligators are not domesticated and they've never shown willingness to be. No study shows them as being as great pets as say dogs or rabbits. Studies show homosexuals can be as competent in their parenting as heterosexuals.
 
Redress said:
Ummm...he challenged you to prove your claim, he did not make a claim himself. One of these days you should take some one up on their challenge to provide proof, or even evidence that one of your claims is accurate. You have yet to ever do that that I have seen.
Click to expand...

Actually he argued the evidence presented that proved the opposite. His position was and is quite clear.
 
texmaster said:
Actually he argued the evidence presented that proved the opposite. His position was and is quite clear.
Click to expand...

Then why did you not quote that. What you quoted was him asking you to prove your claim, which you still have not done.
 
Redress said:
Then why did you not quote that. What you quoted was him asking you to prove your claim, which you still have not done.
Click to expand...

Redress please. Look back at the two articles I quoted on both sexual intercourse and on the menstrual cycle.

Are you denying their function as well?

If you argue against the position taken and argue the evidence presented for that position, you are obviously supporting the other side. This isn't rocket science.
 
Hatuey said:
CR is talking about marriage also being available to gays. Not your definition of marriage being available to them.
Click to expand...
He's advocating that we make marriage completely private. We've already got that option open to anyone that wants it. He's not advocating anything for gays above and beyond what they ALREADY have right now.
 
Taylor said:
The logic isn't sound. This doesn't mean your conclusion is wrong, it only means the argument doesn't necessarily support it. The easiest way to explain is to illustrate with an argument of similar structure:

1) Pet ownership promotes happy homes.
2) Children do better in happy homes.
3) Alligators are willing to be pets of children in need of happy homes (especially hungry ones)
4) (Therefore) Allowing alligators as pets results in strengthening society by giving more children happy homes.
Click to expand...

Alligators are not pets. They are not willing to be pets. Gays are not predators as a general rule.

I did not include every step, assuming you could follow the basic chain. There is no evidence that a stable gay home(which marriage would promote) would be anything but a good place to raise children, and many gays have a willingness to do just that.
 
texmaster said:
Redress please. Look back at the two articles I quoted on both sexual intercourse and on the menstrual cycle.

Are you denying their function as well?

If you argue against the position taken and argue the evidence presented for that position, you are obviously supporting the other side. This isn't rocket science.
Click to expand...

His position was that you have not proved what you claimed. That is not saying you are wrong, or that the opposite of your claim is true. He said you had not proven your claim. You have not. His comment was factual. Your comment about his was not.
 
Redress said:
His position was that you have not proved what you claimed. That is not saying you are wrong, or that the opposite of your claim is true. He said you had not proven your claim. You have not. His comment was factual. Your comment about his was not.
Click to expand...

He comment was NOT factual. I had already provided the evidence.

Since you are defending him here, please give us your position of the function of the sexual reproductive organs. Is their function procreation or not?

And, would you need evidence of the functionality of reproductive organs or would you already know that?
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
A pet is the name for a wide range of domesticated animals humans can have as companions.
Click to expand...
Really?

Are aquarium fish domesticated?

How about birds?

Reptiles?
 
Taylor said:
Really?

Are aquarium fish domesticated?

How about birds?

Reptiles?
Click to expand...

Yes, yes, and yes, though not in all cases in any of those examples.
 
Taylor said:
Really?

Are aquarium fish domesticated?

How about birds?

Reptiles?
Click to expand...

do·mes·ti·cate (d-mst-kt)
tr.v. do·mes·ti·cat·ed, do·mes·ti·cat·ing, do·mes·ti·cates
1. To cause to feel comfortable at home; make domestic.
2. To adopt or make fit for domestic use or life.

-------------------

Not all fish are domesticated. Case and point white sharks. Not all birds are domesticated. Case and point vultures. Not all reptiles are domesticated. Case and point Bald eagles. Not all reptiles are domesticated. Case and point croco****ingdiles.
 
Redress said:
Alligators are not pets.
Click to expand...
To some people they are:
Alligators as pets

Redress said:
Gays are not predators as a general rule.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying that gays are predators, but was just pointing out that your observations/premises don't necessarily lead us to your conclusion.

Hey! You asked me, "Tell me where I go wrong in your opinion please" - that's all I was doing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom