• 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.

theplaydrive said:
There's so much attitude in this thread, I can't even function. But I like watching...
Click to expand...

Eh, I've seen much worse. I might disagree with him on some things but mac is a good guy who is at least worth a back-and-forth unlike some other crazies around here...
 
StillBallin75 said:
I mentioned this already, but I think the global dominance of Christianity and Islam (and I don't know about Islam, but we all know about the passages in both the Old and New Testaments that supposedly condemn homosexuality) definitely have a lot to do with it.
Click to expand...

I find it difficult to believe that something as fundamental as intercourse could have been nearly stomped out be a religion if it were truly seen as normal, natural, and/or moral.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Eh, I've seen much worse. I might disagree with him on some things but mac is a good guy who is at least worth a back-and-forth unlike some other crazies around here...
Click to expand...

I've seen worse to and I've been in worse and agree about mac, he seems like a genuinely good guy...I just like the attitude that mac and CT are throwing each other. It's the fun kind not the infuriating kind.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Eh, I've seen much worse. I might disagree with him on some things but mac is a good guy who is at least worth a back-and-forth unlike some other crazies around here...
Click to expand...

He spent an entire thread lying to us, telling us he was going to provide us with a special definition of "natural" that would explain how nature could be used to expalin the immorality of homosexuality. Now he is skirting the same way with the word "normal". He may be a good guy, but he is not an honest debater.
 
mac said:
I find it difficult to believe that something as fundamental as intercourse could have been nearly stomped out be a religion if it were truly seen as normal, natural, and/or moral.
Click to expand...

Tell it to Catholic preists and nuns.
 
mac said:
I find it difficult to believe that something as fundamental as intercourse could have been nearly stomped out be a religion if it were truly seen as normal, natural, and/or moral.
Click to expand...

I guess you and I just have different perspectives about just how powerful an influence religion can have on both society as a whole, and the mind of the individual. Not just religion, but the process of growing up and being socialized in general really shapes how people behave and the things they believe.

Edit: I'm talking about European history for the past several millenia, in which the Church was the dominant institution in society and secular societies didn't really exist. The same could be said about Islam and the Islamic world.
 
Last edited:
mac said:
We are food for whom?
Click to expand...

Anything that can eat us.



We are talking about morality.
Click to expand...

No we aren't.


The morality behind what is normal and abnormal concerning homosexuality.
Click to expand...

No, morality is an entirely different issue. We're talking about what is normal/abnormal and the consistency of normalcy/abnormalacy.

You are attempting to show that because something has once been abnormal and is now normal that there is no defense of thinking something to be abnormal.
Click to expand...

I was actually pointing out that it's pretty stupid to try and demonize the concept of making the abnormal normal because almost every action a person holds sacred was once viewed as abnormal.

People can think that something is abnormal all they want. Some things are abnormal.

But demonizing the idea of making the abnormal normal is pretty stupid, though, because not everything abnormal is bad, nor is everythign normal good.

It was once normal in our society to get married and start a family at the age of 13....not only is that not normal now, it is taboo. See, it can go the other way too.
Click to expand...

Considering I actually said that already, I'm not sure where you got the idea that it would be a rebuttal to my points.
 
CriticalThought said:
He spent an entire thread lying to us, telling us he was going to provide us with a special definition of "natural" that would explain how nature could be used to expalin the immorality of homosexuality. Now he is skirting the same way with the word "normal". He may be a good guy, but he is not an honest debater.
Click to expand...

I took a day to define my view of natural (not a special view) as I was asked to do by a participant in the conversation. I did that. There was no lie there, except for the fact that If I call the sky blue, you call it a lie.
 
mac said:
I find it difficult to believe that something as fundamental as intercourse could have been nearly stomped out be a religion if it were truly seen as normal, natural, and/or moral.
Click to expand...

Well, when it's a minority position, and the punishment for it is death, and you're looking at the dark ages, you really shouldn't find much difficulty with it. Especially considering the amount of power the church had.

Any thoughts on its prevalence in more advanced societies?
 
TheBook said:
Well, when it's a minority position, and the punishment for it is death, and you're looking at the dark ages, you really shouldn't find much difficulty with it. Especially considering the amount of power the church had.

Any thoughts on its prevalence in more advanced societies?
Click to expand...

That makes sense in a place where it wasn't so widespread. In Greece it was commonplace by some accounts, perceived as as natural and acceptable as heterosexuality.
 
edit: too many pages back forget it
 
mac said:
I took a day to define my view of natural (not a special view) as I was asked to do by a participant in the conversation. I did that. There was no lie there, except for the fact that If I call the sky blue, you call it a lie.
Click to expand...

I just went back to the old thread. You didn't define natural. You argued that homosexuality is a learned behavior and that learned behaviors are not natural.
 
mac said:
That makes sense in a place where it wasn't so widespread. In Greece it was commonplace by some accounts, perceived as as natural and acceptable as heterosexuality.
Click to expand...

Actually it was perceived as superior to heterosexuality (well, male homosexuality was at any rate) for various cultural and mainly sexist reasons.

Although maybe a more accurate example would be Rome. Essentially you just saw what you see after any wide-spread revolution leading to the destruction of a society. i.e. change.
 
CriticalThought said:
I just went back to the old thread. You didn't define natural. You argued that homosexuality is a learned behavior and that learned behaviors are not natural.
Click to expand...

Let me get this clear: You are saying that I never provided a definition of natural?
 
mac said:
You did say that, or at least implied it.
Click to expand...

No, that's another lie.

I stated something entirely different than that. If you didn't understand what I said, then ask. Ddon't invent things that I didn't say. By inventing things and then claiming that I said them, you are lying.



That's a lie.
Click to expand...


What portion is a lie, because there is no doubt at all that what you said is a strawman. If you are asying it was an inadvertent strawman, then I appologize for saying it was dishonest. It was, however, dishonest to claim that I said it when you clearly didn't understand what I said, in which case, you are still engaging in dishonesty.

I actually thought you wanted to discuss the issue rather than pour out more vitriol.
Click to expand...

You are the one creating strawmen and then accusing me of saying the things you've created in your strawmen despite the fact that I did not say them.

Pointing that out is not vitriol. If you don't like it, then stop making false claims about what I have said.
 
TheBook said:
Actually it was perceived as superior to heterosexuality (well, male homosexuality was at any rate) for various cultural and mainly sexist reasons.

Although maybe a more accurate example would be Rome. Essentially you just saw what you see after any wide-spread revolution leading to the destruction of a society. i.e. change.
Click to expand...

Why would homosexuality be singled out to be gotten rid off in that revolution?
 
CriticalThought said:
I just went back to the old thread. You didn't define natural. You argued that homosexuality is a learned behavior and that learned behaviors are not natural.
Click to expand...

Actually, he did end up providing a definition of natural in that thread. Granted, it was a made up definition that he designed specifically to try and claim that homosexuality was unnatural and it contradicted his earlier claims about things he did consider natural, but he did end up providing one.
 
Tucker Case said:
Actually, he did end up providing a definition of natural in that thread. Granted, it was a made up definition that he designed specifically to try and claim that homosexuality was unnatural and it contradicted his earlier claims about things he did consider natural, but he did end up providing one.
Click to expand...

Oh good. I'm happy that at least he was honest enough to provide a definition after claiming all that time he would.
 
mac said:
Why would homosexuality be singled out to be gotten rid off in that revolution?
Click to expand...

Why is that important at all?

We're way off the real issue here. You say that it's not "natural." So? We do a lot of unnatural things as a species. Is that grounds for denial of the right to do it?
 
mac said:
Why would homosexuality be singled out to be gotten rid off in that revolution?
Click to expand...

Singled out? It was a notable difference between the old Rome (famous for what Christians saw as perverse and evil sexual practices) and the new Rome that was being built. It was one of many defining cultural differences that were suppressed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom