• 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.

mac said:
Trust me, you do hate.
Click to expand...

Always playing the victim card. Oh those liberals are trying to PUSH THEIR AGENDA ON ME (their agenda of granting people freedom that would in no way affect me) THIS IS AN ATTACK ON ME PERSONALLY!
 
Deuce said:
Always playing the victim card. Oh those liberals are trying to PUSH THEIR AGENDA ON ME (their agenda of granting people freedom that would in no way affect me) THIS IS AN ATTACK ON ME PERSONALLY!
Click to expand...

That's just silly. Read the posts. I didn't judge his worth or make any stereotypical assumptions on his thoughts or actions. Further, I don't feel victimized because someone on the internet hates me. What I feel is amused that people who claim to be more intelligent than their opposition, more enlightened, are the first to judge and stereotype.

It's amusing, really, just like your unjustified and rather senseless poke from left field.

"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views."
-William F. Buckley, Jr.
 
mac said:
What I feel is amused that people who claim to be more intelligent than their opposition, more enlightened, are the first to judge and stereotype.
Click to expand...

Are you still bitching about being called a conformist? :roll:

By definition you are one. Get over it. You intuitively accept a religious doctrine as absolute and expect others to do the same. I'm sorry you don't get to feel all special and enlightened.
 
mac said:
That's just silly. Read the posts. I didn't judge his worth or make any stereotypical assumptions on his thoughts or actions. Further, I don't feel victimized because someone on the internet hates me. What I feel is amused that people who claim to be more intelligent than their opposition, more enlightened, are the first to judge and stereotype.

It's amusing, really, just like your unjustified and rather senseless poke from left field.

"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views."
-William F. Buckley, Jr.
Click to expand...

It was more of a general commentary on the conservative religious types who see other people getting married as somehow an attack on their beliefs.
 
Deuce said:
It was more of a general commentary on the conservative religious types who see other people getting married as somehow an attack on their beliefs.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm close enough to the middle not to be considered a conservative, and whatever it was for, it was uninformed.
 
mac said:
That's just silly. Read the posts. I didn't judge his worth or make any stereotypical assumptions on his thoughts or actions. Further, I don't feel victimized because someone on the internet hates me. What I feel is amused that people who claim to be more intelligent than their opposition, more enlightened, are the first to judge and stereotype.

It's amusing, really, just like your unjustified and rather senseless poke from left field.

"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views."
-William F. Buckley, Jr.
Click to expand...

This is ironic.
 
mac said:
No, it's not Ironic. Deuce claimed he was a liberal by accusing me of feeling victimized by them. I made no assumption.
Click to expand...

1. You were 'amused' by people who stereotype (meaning Deuce).
2. Then you used a quote against him that stereotyped all liberals.

That's pretty ironic.
 
To be completely fair, the vitriol from both sides of the fence is thick and completely unnecessary. The simple truth is that there is an issue that is in contention. Rather than discuss the issue itself, the parties would rather discuss each other. Let's just stick to the issue and stop insulting each other.
 
mac said:
no, I do not.

no, I do not.

I don't need to. My point is you do...and aren't.
Click to expand...

Sure. Uh huh. :roll:

Now are you done bitching? Can we get back to the thread?

Maryland failed to pass gay marriage this year because of the mobilization of a bunch of conformist, black church goers. Typical conformists who feel that their intuitively accepted interpretation of religious doctrine is absolute and everyone else has to comply with it. And like typical conformists, they don't have their own ideas, they simply regurgitated the talking points passed down by their church to their delegates in mass. No real logical or evidence based rational went into this denial of equal rights to gay families. And of course, good ol mac couldn't wait to celebrate by posting about it.
 
Last edited:
theplaydrive said:
1. You were 'amused' by people who stereotype (meaning Deuce).
2. Then you used a quote against him that stereotyped all liberals.

That's pretty ironic.
Click to expand...

I guess you'll have to try to take in context of my last post to understand it. Or not, suit yourself.
 
CriticalThought said:
Sure. Uh huh. :roll:

Now are you done bitching? Can we get back to the thread?
Click to expand...

Now that is funny.

Maryland failed to pass gay marriage this year because of the mobilization of a bunch of conformist, black church goers. Typical conformists who feel that their intutively accepted interpretation of religous doctrine is absolute and everyone else has to comply with it. And like typical conformists, they don't have their own ideas, they simply regurgitated the talking points passed down by their church to their delegates in mass. No real logical or evidence based rational went into this denial of equal rights to gay families. And of course, good ol mac couldn't wait to celebrate by posting about it.
Click to expand...

I would imagine those delegates represented like minded people (however you'd like to paint their mindset) and did their job, which is to represent the people that pay them.
 
mac said:
I would imagine those delegates represented like minded people (however you'd like to paint their mindset) and did their job, which is to represent the people that pay them.
Click to expand...

I didn't say anything bad about the delegates.
 
mac said:
I know what you're trying to say, but why is drinking cows milk any more abnormal than eating the cow?
Click to expand...

Because cow's milk is supposed to be food for for baby cows, not humans. Just like human milk is supposed to be food for baby humans. Whereas, humans are supposed to eat the meat of animals and were doing so well before animals were domesticated.

Now, one could argue that domestication is not "normal". And at one point, it wasn't. It was a revolutionary idea.

And drinking cow's milk was certainly not normal prior to the domestication of livestock. The first person to drink cow's milk was certainly engaging in abnormal behavior. Shockingly so, in fact. Probably as shocking as the idea of drinking dog's milk would be to most people nowadays. Or rat milk.

Since the statement was "making the abnormal normal" I figured I'd take a moment to point out that the claim was not very well thought out because almost everything that we consider normal today was, at one point, considered abnormal.

In fact, on teh other side of the coin, a great many things we would consider abnormal today were considered quite normal in the past. Christianity, for example, was abnormal at one point.

It's important to remember that what one person considers normal was more than likely abnormal at one point, and it could be considered abnormal in the future as well.
 
Last edited:
Tucker Case said:
Because cow's milk is supposed to be food for for baby cows, not humans.
Click to expand...

What are cows supposed to be?


In fact, a great many things we would consider abnormal today were considered quite normal in the past.

It's important to remember that what one perosn considers normal was probably abnormal at one point, and could be considered abnormal in teh future as well.
Click to expand...

It's important to remember not everything abnormal, by nature of it being abnormal, will one day be normal.
 
The whole normal argument is pointless, whether or not you think it's normal or not, doesn't mean that is enough reason to deny LGBT equal protection. Not being normal, isn't due process.
 
Your Star said:
The whole normal argument is pointless, whether or not you think it's normal or not, doesn't mean that is enough reason to deny LGBT equal protection. Not being normal, isn't due process.
Click to expand...

Normal.
Natural.
Biological.
etc.

All of these are pointless when discussing the morality of homosexuality.

Unless you are mac, and you have a special definition which you refuse to share with anyone. :roll:
 
mac said:
It's important to remember not everything abnormal, by nature of it being abnormal, will one day be normal.
Click to expand...

By nature? Who didn't see that one coming?

mac is up to his old games.
 
CriticalThought said:
Normal.
Natural.
Biological.
etc.

All of these are pointless when discussing the morality of homosexuality.

Unless you are mac, and you have a special definition which you refuse to share with anyone. :roll:
Click to expand...

Morally I fail to see how homosexuality could be a moral, or immoral thing. I mean, it's just an attraction to the same sex, your not harming anyone. I don't see homosexuality in the moral/immoral dichotomy, it's just a state of being.
 
Your Star said:
Morally I fail to see how homosexuality could be a moral, or immoral thing. I mean, it's just an attraction to the same sex, your not harming anyone. I don't see homosexuality in the moral/immoral dichotomy, it's just a state of being.
Click to expand...

Until you act on it at least. But then again, the behavior of homosexuality alone doesn't really hurt anyone so unless you have a different value by which you are measuring, such as Biblical spiritual purity, then you probably wouldn't see that as wrong either.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom