• 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.

Read the studies yourself and find out. Like me telling you is going to do anything.

I would read them from an unbiased source as opposed to a gay right group or church group, that's just me though.

I have read the studies. That is why I'm finding you are full of crap as usual. You need "evolutionary purpose" for homosexuality? Here read these...

Gay men may have 'super uncle' evolutionary advantage: Researchers
Genetic Factors Increase Fecundity in Female Maternal Relatives of Bisexual Men and Homosexuals
 
It does if you want to claim it as scientific fact.

You don't justify things in science, you try to falsify things in science. The harder it is to falsfiy, the higher the probablity it is true.
 
No, we all start out females and become males in the womb. The nipples are hold overs.

How do you justify taking away the right to same-sex marriage?

Taking a right requires justification, not granting a right.
 
It does if you want to claim it as scientific fact.

Nonsense. There's no need to justify the fact that the Shoemaker-Levy comet hit Jupiter in order for that to be a scientific fact. We don't need to decide whether or not it was just that this occurred. We're not making a moral claim about the comet. Justifications are about morality, not science.

Also, we don't need to know the reason something happened in order to say "Yep, that happened."

If a male bonobo felates another bonobo, that is homosexual behavior, regardless of the bonobo's motivations and reasons. We can make the scientific claim of homosexual behavior occurring.
 
Last edited:
There is justification for homosexual behavior, he just wouldn't accept it.

There is justification as far as you are concerned. I would say you are probably be pre-disposed to accept anything at face value that claimed homosexuality was normal, natural, and/or moral, though.
 
There is justification as far as you are concerned. I would say you are probably be pre-disposed to accept anything at face value that claimed homosexuality was normal, natural, and/or moral, though.

I would say you're predisposed to NOT believe it. What's your point?

You still haven't justified taking away the right to same-sex marriage.
 
There is justification as far as you are concerned. I would say you are probably be pre-disposed to accept anything at face value that claimed homosexuality was normal, natural, and/or moral, though.

Attacking me instead of my point, nice.
 
You are lying so much you can't even keep all your lies straight in your head.

Bull****, you are twisting what I said. Prove that I lied about anything. We've allready proved your willingness to lie and slander. Show some proof that I am, or stfu.
 
Bull****, you are twisting what I said. Prove that I lied about anything. We've allready proved your willingness to lie and slander. Show some proof that I am, or stfu.

I just showed you the proof. You lied.
 
Bull****, you are twisting what I said. Prove that I lied about anything. We've allready proved your willingness to lie and slander. Show some proof that I am, or stfu.

You said homosexual behavior was not natural and we showed you, by your own definition, that it was.

By your own definition, that means you lied.
 
I'm not attacking you. But have you not said the same about me?

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.

But anyways, what justifications would you accept for homosexual behavior?
 
mac, you create a lot of vitriol. Looking at the last few responses I can't believe you want to blame me for it.
 
Yeah, I'm sure you went to NARTH and read up on some articles so you could support your religous beliefs with some junk science.

I've never gone to NARTH, in fact this is the first time hearing about it. What I read are studies. I don't read summaries of studies on biased sites...biased for or against. It's not my purpose to prove homosexuality wrong, my purpose is to prove my own stance on it wrong. When I do that, then I will change my stance and have serious words with my Priest. But until someone can prove me or my Religion wrong on the issue, then I'll continue looking.
 
I've never gone to NARTH, in fact this is the first time hearing about it. What I read are studies. I don't read summaries of studies on biased sites...biased for or against. It's not my purpose to prove homosexuality wrong, my purpose is to prove my own stance on it wrong. When I do that, then I will change my stance and have serious words with my Priest. But until someone can prove me or my Religion wrong on the issue, then I'll continue looking.

You have proof already. Have a nice day.
 
Back
Top Bottom