• 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

Charles Martel said:
The issue isn't about me either.....

I realize you're gonna argue me and not the content of my argument as well, I find that quite telling is all. I think I'm right...and I think ya'll know it.

I'm on solid ground here, might be time for another smilie and a wave with a pretend you've won the argument tactic. Quite common strat in here, transparent as it gets but, common nonetheless.
Click to expand...

Charles--

Plenty of posters have invited you to have a discussion. You're not open to it. You have an agenda. You have a strong prejudice against gays and lesbians.

Let's be clear that if you want to discuss this issue and have people take you seriously you have to pretend to be listening to us.

It's not about winning. It's about increasing understanding. At least, that's what this discussion/debate are about for me.
 
Last edited:
CaptainCourtesy said:
For example, although studies are very sketchy on this issue, do you know what occupation is one of the most elevated as far as successful suicides? Doctors. Why do you think? Being a doctor is extremely stressful Now, obviously, this is not genetic, but the number one reason for suicide is depression/stress. Just as being a doctor is more stressful than other jobs, being gay is more stressful than not, because of societal issues surrounding being gay.

Here is an interesting article on the topic:

Doctors Have Highest Suicide Rate of Any Profession - Associated Content - associatedcontent.com

Consider this based on what the article says about physicians. The have a very stressful job. Their job can be, literally, life or death. Their mistakes get magnified. They are always a doctor, even at outings. There is a stigma around seeking mental health treatment for doctors. They often have to be the bearer of bad news. All things that bring on stress and depression.

Let's look at gays. Often can't be open about their sexual orientation because of potential retributions. Difficulty with employers. May get ostracized by their church. May be isolated from family. Cannot marry someone they love. These are all issues that bring on stress and depression.

The issue is situational. Take anyone and give them this level of stress and their rate of sucidality will go up.
Click to expand...

Yes....with teen pregnancy at embarrasing levels, children having children, the single parent holocaust leaving our nation adrift, the mentality that children need no male in the home, an absolute joke of a failing school system, open gang violence in our inner cities, a nation teetering in a political hailstorm of economic uncertainty, two wars currently ongoing where the suicide rate in the military is staggeringly high without a sound reason, our youth in crisis, our social programs going bankrupt while your liberal Congress and President pile on even more debt, my football team 1-13......and we should be talking about suicide and societal pressure on 'gays?'

I must be getting old. My Church...a monster in the Community and reaching as far as Haiti and New Orleans(been both places)...giving the usual Noel, Noel around town and our food handouts and Santa's Helpers initiative reaches the New Orleans amount sent and I'm...flabbergasted. Katrina 'victims' still getting direct aid, how long must the Church or federal government continue to throw money and help at New Orleans?

Maybe I need the three ghosts to visit me like Scrooge this year, I'm sitting there drumming my fingers....."we still send this much money and supplies to New Orleans"....."we're 800 miles from New Orleans"..........."what in the world?"

Sometimes people need to be reminded we ALL face stress levels and many times feel no one could walk in our shoes. People feel lonely or outcasted for numerous reasons, nobody has the market cornered.

And on a side note, moral high ground attempts won't go unnoticed. This isn't even a good one.
 
Charles Martel said:
The fact that you cannot prove me wrong nor shield your argument from the truth doesn't mean my argument isn't both relevant and factual.

I haven't had my question answered btw.
Click to expand...

Your own sources proved you wrong. The fact you continue to cling to arguments that even you cannot support shows where the problem lies.
 
windovervocalcords said:
Plenty of posters have invited you to have a discussion.
Click to expand...

So what. You haven't invited that discussion.:) And that's what is both relevant and telling.

You're not open to it. You have an agenda. You have a strong prejudice against gays and lesbians.
Click to expand...

This is simply your opinion and while interesting, ins't relevant to the debate. I haven't called anyone a single name, I am not attacking anyone and am careful beyond measure...to address the argument. Something you're not doing with this irrelevant statement. My prejudices...like yours or CC's....aren't the issue here. As if any of us would know who you are...or what your prejudices are....no one in here would know if I even had any, your opinions on this matter aren't answering my questions.

Let's be clear that if you want to discuss this issue and have people take you seriously you have to pretend to be listening to us.
Click to expand...

I couldn't care less if people take me seriously or not. Good heavens man...we're on a faceless talk forum. Where you can type and banter on and enjoy political debate where it DOESN'T get personal. Is it not this site's purpose to enjoy colorful and many times directly opposing points of view? We simply disagree on the issue at hand...and am arguing about it. Me......my prejudices...aren't relevant.

Now....the agenda part is flat out accurate. And my agenda is to maintain the state's rights through it's elected reps of directly from the people, to define marriage and other societal institutions. TO never leave the decision to a robe or suit but to We the People. I think our society should define marriage and give the government specific instructions on how it should govern and define marriage.

I don't care if I'm not taken seriously, and the fact that serious is even raised doesn't answer even one of my questions. Thus I consider it a deflection...s my argument cannot be addressed.:cool:

It's about increasing understanding. At least, that's what this discussion/debate are about for me.
Click to expand...

It can be "about" anything you'd like, I simply enjoy the banter, am intellectually curious, amused by the untenable positions taken by some across the poltiical divide and enjoy contributing. Yukon Cornelius said it best, "You eat what you eat, I'll eat what I eat."
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
Your own sources proved you wrong. The fact you continue to cling to arguments that even you cannot support shows where the problem lies.
Click to expand...

You haven't answered my questions either. Most telling of all is my unanswered questions.
 
Charles Martel said:
So what. You haven't invited that discussion.:) And that's what is both relevant and telling.



This is simply your opinion and while interesting, ins't relevant to the debate. I haven't called anyone a single name, I am not attacking anyone and am careful beyond measure...to address the argument. Something you're not doing with this irrelevant statement. My prejudices...like yours or CC's....aren't the issue here. As if any of us would know who you are...or what your prejudices are....no one in here would know if I even had any, your opinions on this matter aren't answering my questions.



I couldn't care less if people take me seriously or not. Good heavens man...we're on a faceless talk forum. Where you can type and banter on and enjoy political debate where it DOESN'T get personal. Is it not this site's purpose to enjoy colorful and many times directly opposing points of view? We simply disagree on the issue at hand...and am arguing about it. Me......my prejudices...aren't relevant.

Now....the agenda part is flat out accurate. And my agenda is to maintain the state's rights through it's elected reps of directly from the people, to define marriage and other societal institutions. TO never leave the decision to a robe or suit but to We the People. I think our society should define marriage and give the government specific instructions on how it should govern and define marriage.

I don't care if I'm not taken seriously, and the fact that serious is even raised doesn't answer even one of my questions. Thus I consider it a deflection...s my argument cannot be addressed.:cool:



It can be "about" anything you'd like, I simply enjoy the banter, am intellectually curious, amused by the untenable positions taken by some across the poltiical divide and enjoy contributing. Yukon Cornelius said it best, "You eat what you eat, I'll eat what I eat."
Click to expand...

I invite you to have a discussion on the topic. I salute the DC City Council's decision. At some point, in the near future, marriage equality will be the law of the land througout the US.
 
Last edited:
windovervocalcords said:
I invite you to have a discussion on the topic. I salute the DC City Council's decision. At some point, in the near future, marriage equality will be the law of the land througout the US.
Click to expand...

I accept rather than salute the DC council decison and will wait for Congress' decison. It does fly in the face of current law. And I strongly believe same sex marriage will soon see its high mark and become a state's rights issue where it will most likely not be recognized by most states.

Do you also salute prop 8 in California...it likewise came from the people or its representives.
 
Charles Martel said:
I accept rather than salute the DC council decison and will wait for Congress' decison. It does fly in the face of current law. And I strongly believe same sex marriage will soon see its high mark and become a state's rights issue where it will most likely not be recognized by most states.

Do you also salute prop 8 in California...it likewise came from the people or its representives.
Click to expand...

I accept rather than salute the Prop 8 decision. 18,000 gay couples are still legally married in California despite Prop 8. I salute Attorney General Jerry Brown for that.

Being able to legally marry, and remained married, after being with my partner for 25 years, brings enormous positive changes into our lives. It's a great blessing. I'd like to see others benefit the same as we have.

There's more to celebrate:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1949953,00.html
 
Last edited:
Charles Martel said:
The fact that you cannot prove me wrong nor shield your argument from the truth doesn't mean my argument isn't both relevant and factual.
Click to expand...

Not only have I proven you wrong, but I've proven your position irrelevant.

I haven't had my question answered btw.
Click to expand...

So, have you identified the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior, yet? I've asked you several times and you keep dodging this. Have you addressed my links yet? I keep asking you and you keep dodging that, too. Give it up, Charles. You've proven that when it comes to debating, if there is an issue that actually challenges your position, you'll divert, dodge, and avoid...because you know addressing it will demonstrate the futility of your position. Keep trying to save face. It's amusing.
 
Cilogy said:
I'm trying to take the squirrelly way out and say "well why don't you find a source denying it? blah blah blah myah myah myah." But its something to consider.

There are theories here and there concerning the genetic quality of homosexuality, but its something that is being searched for, not found already; thus the science of it.

Anyway my point is that more open-minded people would believe homosexuals when they themselves say it is "not a choice." It seems like more and more people who say it isn't genetic are saying it simply because they care way too much about the person lives of other people. It seems like these people are somewhat scared to be proven wrong, if in fact it turns out to be genetic.

Why? What does it matter if it turns out to be genetic? What does that change about your life?

Genetic or non-genetic, homosexuality still exists. How do we know? Because we have people who openly recognize it as a "threat."
Click to expand...

What you are ignoring is the other side.

If it is something you are born with how do some live for decades before coming out of the closet? How have some church groups converted gays to heterosexuality? Why are you not open about that?

If you want to accept what some say on faith that isn't being open minded, its being faithful which isn't a crime but it certainly isn't something you base changing a law on.

And the only "threat" people are looking at is the threat of accepting a lifestyle on faith and changing law based on that faith and not facts.
 
I just found this resource:
[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_by_country_or_territory[/ame]
 
Last edited:
TO never leave the decision to a robe or suit but to We the People. I think our society should define marriage and give the government specific instructions on how it should govern and define marriage.
Click to expand...

Oh, I get it. Leave the decision to you and other likeminded people instead? We the people? Got a mouse in your pocket? We the people, have progressively changed our societal views regarding the oppression of gays and each year the pro-gay rights percentages go up and up and up. YOU want to close that door once and for all before you and yours are all but gone? What I hear you saying is that the decision deserves to be made by you and your monster church and "we the people" be damned.

Got it. :roll:

You would have no problem with amending a constitution to fit your definition of what is and is not marriage, forever closing the door to future generations to make that decision for themselves?

We the people.... sheeesh. :roll: Gimme a break.
 
texmaster said:
What you are ignoring is the other side.

If it is something you are born with how do some live for decades before coming out of the closet? How have some church groups converted gays to heterosexuality? Why are you not open about that?

If you want to accept what some say on faith that isn't being open minded, its being faithful which isn't a crime but it certainly isn't something you base changing a law on.

And the only "threat" people are looking at is the threat of accepting a lifestyle on faith and changing law based on that faith and not facts.
Click to expand...

they haven't. some people just don't have the balls to stand up and be counted for who they are. they would rather live in a false hetero identity than to live like a pariah in the world.

some people are so afraid of the rejection they live in pain and in hiding. when a person tells their parents that they are gay or lesbian there is a huge possibility that they will suffer bigoted rejection even from those that lie about lovely you and accepting you no matter what.

many gays and lesbians live in hiding. they hate their lives and many times the solution to religious bigotry and homophobic hatred is suicide. the churches should be torn down for all the mental damage they put on people.

they churches do nothing except push people in a box of hiding. gay is gay lesbian is lesbian. we can't change that or the feelings. the best anyone does is convince someone to hide.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Thank you. I appreciate your honesty. :)



Actually, that is not true. Questionnaires are more reliable than interviews because they are far more generic. Interviews can be more easily subjective.
Click to expand...

Totally false. We are talking about psychological evaluation. Perhaps its because I am close to this field because I have family in it I understand it better than you but body language is a key component which is why therapists don't rely on questionnaires for answers.

Too subjective. How one person reads body language is different than how others might. I've conducted research studies. Questionnaires are more reliable.
Click to expand...

Completely false. You obviously have never studied or known any experts in body language. It is absolutely key in a psychological evaluation.

1 on 1 face time is absolutely essential when studying the psychological profile of a person not to mention their honesty or dishonesty on a subject.

Ummm...no, that is a study done by the authors themselves.
Click to expand...

Read it again. The majority of their conclusions are cited by footnote of other studies.

Hand 1991, Patterson, 1995, Osterweil 1991

Been a while since I've looked at this study. You could be right about this one. I would not conduct research this way, but I need to take a harder look at it for validity's sake.
Click to expand...

Go right ahead.

I do not agree. An interview is far more subjective than a well designed questionnaire.
Click to expand...

You are going to need to explain this point of view.

A questionnaire filled out unsupervised away from any control, leaves open all matter of outside influences from group think to someone else filling out the parts especially for children.

When you question someone directly you can see facial twitches, moving around in a chair, uncomfortable subjects, and slew of other non verbal communication you cannot get with a questionnaire.

Why do you think juries want to see witnesses? Why not just fill out a questionnaire? Why is it a requirement of law?

Why do shrinks have offices? Why not simply evaluate someone based on a questionnaire?

No, both of these practices are standard and in most cases produce far more reliable results. If one chooses random sampling for a study, one often gets unwilling participants who can create skewed data. Using volunteers and questionnaires do not, in general, create reliability problems. Questionnaires certainly not, and volunteers mostly not.
Click to expand...

To believe this is to throw out everything we know and understand about body lanaguage and its effect not to mention allowing the very real possibility of group answers and group think when the questionnaire is filled out in an uncontrolled environment.
 
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
Private marriages that are not legally binding can accomplish the same thing.
Click to expand...
Through what mechanism? Can you provide an example of another country that uses such a model with equal success compared to what we have now?
 
texmaster said:
To believe this is to throw out everything we know and understand about body lanaguage and its effect not to mention allowing the very real possibility of group answers and group think when the questionnaire is filled out in an uncontrolled environment.
Click to expand...

Just out of curiosity, do you hae any valid peer reviewed evidence to indicate that children raised by same sex couples are at a significant disadvantage to children raised by different sex couples? To support your position you need to do more than take shots at the opposition's evidence, you have to supply some valid evidence of your own.

Also, given the dozens upon dozens of qualitative studies which support the "no better or worse" hypothesis, is it not safe to assume that at least some same sex couples are just as capable of raising children as different sex couples?
 
Taylor said:
I think you read that wrong.
Click to expand...

They have same sex marriage on a continent that is adamantly opposed to homosexuality and which has a rigorous history of war and genocide.

To me, South Africa having same sex marriage seems equivalent to whacking a beehive while sitting beneath it.
 
CriticalThought said:
They have same sex marriage on a continent that is adamantly opposed to homosexuality and which has a rigorous history of war and genocide.

To me, South Africa having same sex marriage seems equivalent to whacking a beehive while sitting beneath it.
Click to expand...
aaah, okay.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom