• 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!

Pentagon: No Plans to Change 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Policy After Court Ruling

Boo Radley said:
For most who marry, love and attraction are the ONLY components.
Click to expand...
So what?
Love and attraction arent in any way -necessary- components of marriage
Thus, any argument, such as yours, based on 'love and attraction' necessarily fails.

As such, you have done nothing to show how my argyument is unsound.
 
Goobieman said:
So what?
Love and attraction arent in any way -necessary- components of marriage
Thus, any argument, such as yours, based on 'love and attraction' necessarily fails.

As such, you have done nothing to show how my argyument is unsound.
Click to expand...

Are you married? I've been married going on 28 years. They damn sure do matter. And are necessary.

And no, it doesn't fail. It is why most marry. So, it has to be a large part of the equation. Even other reasons for marrying have nothing to do with gender, like finanaces. Very few, if any, look for a spouse with no other component other than gneder.

Like I said, your argument is silly and unsound.
 
Boo Radley said:
Are you married? I've been married going on 28 years. They damn sure do matter. And are necessary.
Click to expand...
False. Nothing about marriage, conceptually or legally -necessitates- that those getting married have any attraction for one another, or any degree of emotional attachment. Your argument, therefore, is based on a false standard -- that someone may or may not be able to get married to someone they love/are attracted to is meaningless as such a thing is not necessary to marriage.

Any argument based on this false standard is necessarily unsound.

And no, it doesn't fail. It is why most marry. So, it has to be a large part of the equation.
Click to expand...
Look up the work "necessary" and then relate that definition to the concept of a "necessary relationship".

Like I said, your argument is silly and unsound.
Click to expand...
Like -I- have said -- you have done nothing to show that it is unsound.
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
False. Nothing about marriage, conceptually or legally -necessitates- that those getting married have any attraction for one another, or any degree of emotional attachment. Your argument, therefore, is based on a false standard -- that someone may or may not be able to get married to someone they love/are attracted to is meaningless as such a thing is not necessary to marriage.

Any argument based on this false standard is necessarily unsound.


Look up the work "necessary" and then relate that definition to the concept of a "necessary relationship".


Like -I- have said -- you have done nothing to show that it is unsound.
Click to expand...

So, you would glady marry some of the same sex if that was the law?
 
Boo Radley said:
While I seriously doubt your premise, marriage is the answer to Sexual promiscuity. By your argument, you should be in favor of same sex marriage.

So, what you think aside, and considering homosexuality has always been with us, can you support your fear of negitive effects?
Click to expand...

You can turn a housewife into a whore, but you can't turn a whore into a housewife.
 
apdst said:
Your mileage may vary.
Click to expand...

Again, you make a gewneral statement that I don't believe is true. How did you arrive at that statement? What evidence do you have. I realize you may well have been simply flippant, but people change and can change anytime allong their journey, for any reason. So I ask, says who?
 
Boo Radley said:
So, you would glady marry some of the same sex if that was the law?
Click to expand...
What I or you or anyone else would do could not possibly be more irrelevant to anyhting I said.
 
Goobieman said:
What I or you or anyone else would do could not possibly be more irrelevant to anyhting I said.
Click to expand...

Of course it does. You're saying other people can decide for you who you can marry. So, I must assume you would be comfortable letting the majority decide you should marry someone of the same sex and that you would do so willingly.
 
Boo Radley said:
Of course it does.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't. You're offering up a red herring, and, well, you might as well not have bothered.
If you cannot show how my argument is unsound -- and thus far, you clearly have not -- just say so, and move on.
 
Goobieman said:
No, it doesn't. You're offering up a red herring, and, well, you might as well not have bothered.
If you cannot show how my argument is unsound -- and thus far, you clearly have not -- just say so, and move on.
Click to expand...

Nope. Marriage is not just gender. It is more and as long as you discrimnate without justification or acknolegment of why people marry, you're just being silly.
 
By the way, on the actual topic(DADT, remember), the Senate is considering now a rider to the defense spending bill for the year to repeal DADT. Passage looks uncertain at best, with the argument being made that congress should wait until after the Pentagon study to do this.
 
Boo Radley said:
Nope. Marriage is not just gender. It is more and as long as you discrimnate without justification or acknolegment of why people marry, you're just being silly.
Click to expand...
You can keep repeating this all you want -- you haven't actually illustrated how my argument is unsound.
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
By the way, on the actual topic(DADT, remember), the Senate is considering now a rider to the defense spending bill for the year to repeal DADT.
Click to expand...
The bigoted homophobes that created and passed DADT should be ahamed of themselves.
 
Goobieman said:
You can keep repeating this all you want -- you haven't actually illustrated how my argument is unsound.
Click to expand...

:lamo

Keep telling yourself that. But an unreasonable person, holding on to a wrong headed premise, often believes they haven't been shown the unsoundness of their position.

:lamo
 
Boo Radley said:
Keep telling yourself that.
Click to expand...
The truth sets me free.

When you think you can actually show my argument to be unsound, feel free to step up to the plate.
 
These ultra-conservatives are starting to sound more and more like the Islamic fundamentalist they condemn. We are overseas fighting for "Iraqi freedom" and trying to liberate Afghans from Taliban control, but discriminate against Americans who want to fight for our country simply because they are attracted to people of the same sex or because of what they do in the privacy of their own home? How is that American? Conservatives don't want liberty, they want control.

You can say what you want about liberals, but if weren't for liberals slavery would still exist, women wouldn't have the right to vote and the civil rights movement would have never happened (Please, before you say "Lincoln was a Republican", notice I said "liberals" and not "Republicans" or "Democrats". Southern conservative democrats at the time slandered Lincoln for being a "liberal"). Now conservatives are embarrassed that their movements didn't support these changes (especially southerners who are embarrassed by their slavery and Jim Crow past). When gays do have equal rights (which one day they will), the next generation of conservatives will be embarrassed that their predecessors were so discriminatory. An intelligent man is one who thinks well within his time. A genius is one who is able to think ahead of his time.
 
Last edited:
Johnny DooWop said:
These ultra-conservatives are starting to sound more and more like the Islamic fundamentalist they condemn. We are overseas fighting for "Iraqi freedom" and trying to liberate Afghans from Taliban control, but discriminate against Americans who want to fight for our country simply because they are attracted to people of the same sex or because of what they do in the privacy of their own home? How is that American? Conservatives don't want liberty, they want control.
Click to expand...
Yeah! Damn the homophobic bigots that created and passed DADT all to hell!
 
Goobieman said:
Neither homosexuals nor heterosexuals can marry someone of the same gender.
Both homosexuals and heterosexuals can marry somene of the opposite gender.
Everyone has the same privilege; everyone has the same limitation.
Where's the discrimination?
Click to expand...

I bet you would've used that argument to contest Loving vs Virginia too. Are you saying that Jim Crow miscegenation laws were constitutional?
 
Johnny DooWop said:
I bet you would've used that argument to contest Loving vs Virginia too. Are you saying that Jim Crow miscegenation laws were constitutional?
Click to expand...
I'm sorry - can you illustrate the discrimination, or not?
 
Goobieman said:
I'll take that as a no. Thanks for playing.
Click to expand...

All you are doing is playing a game of semantics with the definition of discrimination. That type of discrimination has already been "illustrated" as being unconstitutional. Go read Loving vs Virginia. Its the same thing, both Blacks and Whites couldn't marry outside of their race, and in your mind, those laws didn't fit the definition of discrimination because everyone was subjected to it. The Supreme Court judges however "illustrated" that your definition of discrimination is false, because they ruled it unconstitutional. Under our system of common law it is "unfair to treat similar facts differently on different occasions." So therefore, DADT and the gay marriage bans should be ruled unconstitutional under common law.
 
Another way to put it: Discrimination is unconstitutional. Prohibiting homosexuals from marrying each other is discrimination because heterosexuals get to marry who they are attracted to, while homosexuals do not get to marry who they are attracted to. So you are mistaken when you say the law effects everyone the same way. It doesn't, therefore it is discrimination.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom