• 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!

Maryland Gay Marriage Bill sent back to cmte. Shelved for this year at least.

Your Star said:
You are saying that I am so biased towards homosexuality that I would accept a study that isn't valid. That is attacking me, and I have said nothing about you like that.
Click to expand...

Just as you've said I ignore information to the contrary. There's no difference.

But anyways, what justifications would you accept for homosexual behavior?
Click to expand...

I would accept anything fact based. Such as genetic proof that humans are born homosexual, or even scientific proof that it's a learned behavior outside the control of the person. This would have to be fact based, peer reviewed science though. Not a study that says "it could be" which to date, they all do.
 
CriticalThought said:
mac, you create a lot of vitriol. Looking at the last few responses I can't believe you want to blame me for it.
Click to expand...

By having a differing opinion? I'm not calling you names or pigeonholing you into ideologies. I'm not judging your worth as a person. These are the things you've done in nearly every post you've made towards me.
 
mac said:
Just as you've said I ignore information to the contrary. There's no difference.



I would accept anything fact based. Such as genetic proof that humans are born homosexual, or even scientific proof that it's a learned behavior outside the control of the person. This would have to be fact based, peer reviewed science though. Not a study that says "it could be" which to date, they all do.
Click to expand...

But what does this have to do with law? We pay taxes, nothing we do is illegal, why shouldn't I be able to get married, even if it was a choice?
 
Last edited:
mac said:
my purpose is to prove my own stance on it wrong.
Click to expand...

Let's examine your stance. You have a logical fallacy where you appeal to normality and claim that because homosexuality is only a part of 8% of the population it must be wrong. You have a logical fallacy of appealing to nature where you argue that homosexuality doesn't occur in enough species or with enough "justification" to be considered natural and thus it is wrong. You have a logical fallacy of appeal to tradition where you argue that because historically it has fallen in and out of popularity that is it wrong.

So what does that leave? Your religion. Which you openly admit that someone has to prove wrong in order to change your stance on homosexuality! It all comes down to mac's religion!

And how skeptical are you of your religion? From what I can tell, you are a typical conformist. You accept it on intution as absolute. And of course, nobody can reason someone out of a belief that they were never reasoned into believing in the first place.

So we could have saved a lot of time had you just accepted that you are a conformist and not gone through making all these logical fallacies and pretending like you aren't predisposed to seeing the issue through the lens of your religious indoctrination.
 
Last edited:
mac said:
By having a differing opinion? I'm not calling you names or pigeonholing you into ideologies. I'm not judging your worth as a person. These are the things you've done in nearly every post you've made towards me.
Click to expand...

You just want to deny him the ability to get married to the person he wants. Your whole position on SSM brings confrontation.
 
mac said:
By having a differing opinion? I'm not calling you names or pigeonholing you into ideologies. I'm not judging your worth as a person. These are the things you've done in nearly every post you've made towards me.
Click to expand...

Dude, you want to deny rights to same sex families simply because you intuitively accept a religious doctrine as absolute and expects others to do the same. That is confrontational.
 
Your Star said:
But what does this have to do with law? We pay taxes, nothing we do is illegal, why should I be able to get married, even if it was a choice?
Click to expand...

My answer to that is two fold, First and most importantly because I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman and that it is a religious institution. Secondly, because it opposes the societal norms concerning marriage.

I understand that an opposite sex couple can get a "secular" marriage now and for that reason, personally, I support civil unions that provide all the benefits of marriage and would vote for such legislation.
 
mac said:
Homosexuality doesn't serve any benefit to our species. In my view, if homosexuality were natural, our bodies would accommodate it and it would serve a function in our species.
Click to expand...

By your own definition, shown above, for something to be "natural" to our species, it must serve a function.

Male nipples serve no function within our species. Therefore, by your previously stated definition, they are unnatural.

mac said:
No, we all start out females and become males in the womb. The nipples are hold overs.
Click to expand...

And homosexuality can be explained scientifically to a certain degree (check out fraternal birth order, a well documented phenomenon regarding the establishment of homosexual identity in-utero.)

But that was not your argument. Now your arguments are changing...
 
mac said:
I understand that an opposite sex couple can get a "secular" marriage now and for that reason, personally, I support civil unions that provide all the benefits of marriage and would vote for such legislation.
Click to expand...

Why would you vote for such thing when you consider homosexuality to be abnormal, unnatural, and immoral?
 
mac said:
My answer to that is two fold, First and most importantly because I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman and that it is a religious institution. Secondly, because it opposes the societal norms concerning marriage.

I understand that an opposite sex couple can get a "secular" marriage now and for that reason, personally, I support civil unions that provide all the benefits of marriage and would vote for such legislation.
Click to expand...

Those who are not religious can still be married. Would you argue that they must attain civil unions and should not be allowed to be "married"?
 
TheBook said:
By your own definition, shown above, for something to be "natural" to our species, it must serve a function.

Male nipples serve no function within our species. Therefore, by your previously stated definition, they are unnatural.
Click to expand...

Addressed that previously.

And homosexuality can be explained scientifically to a certain degree (check out fraternal birth order, a well documented phenomenon regarding the establishment of homosexual identity in-utero.)

But that was not your argument. Now your arguments are changing...
Click to expand...

It's been theorized to be caused by a great many things. I'll need more than theories, though, to counter my beliefs.
 
mac said:
It's been theorized to be caused by a great many things. I'll need more than theories, though, to counter my beliefs.
Click to expand...

Yeah, because your intutive acceptance of a religous doctrine is based on so much more than a theory. :roll:
 
TheBook said:
Those who are not religious can still be married. Would you argue that they must attain civil unions and should not be allowed to be "married"?
Click to expand...

No, that's why there are JOPs and Notaries that can perform marriage.
 
mac said:
My answer to that is two fold, First and most importantly because I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman and that it is a religious institution. Secondly, because it opposes the societal norms concerning marriage.

I understand that an opposite sex couple can get a "secular" marriage now and for that reason, personally, I support civil unions that provide all the benefits of marriage and would vote for such legislation.
Click to expand...

First off, we are not talking about a religious institution we are talking about a legal institution, I could go out, and get married by a church tomorrow, and there is nothing you can do to "protect the religious sanctity of marriage", unless you want to deny religious freedom. Also why is opposite sex marriage being a "societally norm" as you call it, cause for denying SSM. What harm does SSM cause to OSM, and the people in OSM? Surely you can see the harm LGBT people are being caused by denying SSM.
 
mac said:
That doesn't matter, I believe it.
Click to expand...

Of course you do. You are willing to treat other people and families as second class citizens based on your intutive acceptance of a religous doctrine. And you wonder why people might find you confrontational.

And why do you find the term "conformist" to be offensive?
 
Your Star said:
First off, we are not talking about a religious institution we are talking about a legal institution, I could go out, and get married by a church tomorrow, and there is nothing you can do to "protect the religious sanctity of marriage", unless you want to deny religious freedom.
Click to expand...

Then why don't you?

Also why is opposite sex marriage being a "societally norm" as you call it, cause for denying SSM.
Click to expand...

Society must be made to feel that their wishes and wants have value. If they do not, you see large scale unrest. Like we saw in the US in 60s.

What harm does SSM cause to OSM, and the people in OSM? Surely you can see the harm LGBT people are being caused by denying SSM.
Click to expand...

I don't know that it does any real and imminent harm, that's why my opposition would be easily reversed with scientific evidence. More religious, conservative, people than myself won't be as easily swayed.
 
CriticalThought said:
Of course you do. You are willing to treat other people and families as second class citizens based on your intutive acceptance of a religous doctrine. And you wonder why people might find you confrontational.

And why do you find the term "conformist" to be offensive?
Click to expand...

Lol, you're not confrontational?

I find it offensive because you mean it to be. You are being insulting.
 
Your Star said:
You just want to deny him the ability to get married to the person he wants. Your whole position on SSM brings confrontation.
Click to expand...

Not if I were talking to a bunch of people that agreed with me. Why don't we all do that from now on, just talk to the people that hold the same views.
 
mac said:
I don't know that it does any real and imminent harm, that's why my opposition would be easily reversed with scientific evidence. More religious, conservative, people than myself won't be as easily swayed.
Click to expand...

You want scientific evidence disproving your religous beliefs?

You do realize that in your belief system, all humanity is genetically derived from just two people, serpents are capable of human speech, two of every animal survived on a massive ark, and people can walk on water, can turn water into wine, and make food appear from nowhere?
 
mac said:
Then why don't you?
Click to expand...

I plan too, whenever I find the person I want to marry, but that doesn't change the fact that the marriage wouldn't be recognized by the government. My point is that this debate isn't about religion, but the law.

Society must be made to feel that their wishes and wants have value. If they do not, you see large scale unrest. Like we saw in the US in 60s.
Click to expand...

Like when society wanted to stop the movement for blacks to become equal in society, and it eventually erupted when the oppressed minority group said enough is enough?

I don't know that it does any real and imminent harm, that's why my opposition would be easily reversed with scientific evidence. More religious, conservative, people than myself won't be as easily swayed.
Click to expand...

If it doesn't cause any real harm, then why should it not be made law, even if it is a choice?
 
mac said:
But until someone can prove me or my Religion wrong on the issue, then I'll continue looking.
Click to expand...

If it's all about your religion, why bother with the natural and normal fallacies? Why not simply state:

Premise 1: I believe the bible to be accurate about what it describes as immoral
Premise 2: The bible describes homosexuality as immoral.
Conclusion: Therefore I believe that homosexuality is immoral.

At least you'd have valid logic.

The arguments you do present about normal and natural are simply not valid logic. They are attempts to use things other than the bible to justify your beliefs. You don't need anything more in order to justify your beliefs about morality, though.

Where you would need more than just the bible is when you take your own moral beliefs and attempt to influence legislation with it. This is why so many arguments against gay marriage are fallacious. Those who oppose gay marriage, in many cases, do so based entirely on their moral views which stem from the bible or religion.

Yet they know a biblical basis will not be accepted for legal purposes, so they try to come up with other arguments, even though these arguments are not the one's which convinced them that homosexuality is immoral and "wrong". This is why those arguments are often illogical.

But if your views are based on the bible and religion, just stick with that. Say "I believe homosexuality is immoral because of my religion. I don't really care if it is normal or natural. As long as it is considered immoral by my religion, I will always believe it is immoral."

That's an honest argument because, ultimately, that's what's going on. Your views are fixed on this. I would guess that it would take nothing short of the Pope himself saying that homosexuality is morally acceptable for those views to change.
 
CriticalThought said:
You want scientific evidence disproving your religous beliefs?
Click to expand...

Yes.

You do realize that in your belief system, all humanity is genetically derived from just two people, serpents are capable of human speech, two of every animal survived on a massive ark, and people can walk on water, can turn water into wine, and make food appear from nowhere?
Click to expand...

I do realize that's how you see it, sure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom