• 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.

Lol, you're not confrontational?

I don't take bullcrap from people and you carry a big shovel.

I find it offensive because you mean it to be. You are being insulting.

The only reason you find it offensive is because you are ashamed of it. This was your choice. You chose to intuitively accept a religious doctrine as absolute and to expect others to live in accordance with it. If you find your lifestyle insulting then maybe you need to reconsider your lifestyle. I'm not responsible for you feeling guilty about your choice of lifestyle.
 
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.



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?



If it doesn't cause any real harm, then why should it not be made law, even if it is a choice?

It's alright, Georgia sucks, you can come hang out in Maryland and get married when it passes next year :D
 
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.

Yeah, but everyone else's point is that it's not just about the law. It's about society.

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?

It erupted when far more than the minority group said enough is enough. But, otherwise...yeah, I agree with that statement. Change society.

If it doesn't cause any real harm, then why should it not be made law, even if it is a choice?

Because it's contrary to societies wishes, at least for now.
 
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.

I object to your use of the phrase "supposed to".
 
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.

Because that's not all I believe. I also believe in science.

The arguments you do present about normal and natural are simply not valid logic.

There is nothing illogical about anything I've said.

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.

Absolutely, what I would need is absolute proof to change my view of morality.

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.

I'm not trying to do that though. That is not my goal.

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.

That doesn't make them illogical, at best it makes them dishonest to the individual.

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 not how I feel. My views are based on how I was raised, my religion, and my research. Also, I do care if it's normal or natural. That would affect my belief.

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.

My argument doesn't need your approval, just like any you'd make doesn't need mine.
 
Last edited:
There are a lot of taboos placed on sex by our species. Because homosexuality has historically, with few exceptions, been taboo it has become ingrained into our morality as an immoral act.

Homosexual acts. Being gay is generally not something others either realize unless people engage in homosexual acts. It's an important distinction.
 
Homosexual acts. Being gay is generally not something others either realize unless people engage in homosexual acts. It's an important distinction.

It is, and you should assume that's what I meant. I don't often spell it out like that and I should.
 
I object to your use of the phrase "supposed to".

That's actually a fair objection. Supposed to implies that there is a rational purpose to something, instead of a purely biological purpose.

In a biological sense, milk exists for the sole purpose of feeding mammalian young. Is that better?
 
Let me get this clear: You are saying that I never provided a definition of natural?

You did provide a definition, though it wasa very artificial definition that does not really match how the word is used in the english language.
 
There is nothing illogical about anything I've said.

I have literally listed every logical fallacy you have made. You aren't fooling anyone.

Absolutely, what I would need is absolute proof to change my view of morality.

Because you totally needed absolute proof to accept the Bible, right? :roll:
 
Yeah, but everyone else's point is that it's not just about the law. It's about society.

But we are apart of society, why shouldn't the law represent us as well?

It erupted when far more than the minority group said enough is enough. But, otherwise...yeah, I agree with that statement. Change society.

But the majority of people didn't approve, it was against societies wishes.

Because it's contrary to societies wishes, at least for now.

That's not good enough.
 
To the people who want to say homosexuality is immoral, why is it immoral?

Because gays are icky.

Well gay guys. Lesbians are hot. Aren't you glad you are not a guy now?
 
You did provide a definition, though it wasa very artificial definition that does not really match how the word is used in the english language.

I disagree. I included the evolutionary purpose bit for this argument because that's how I see it. I believe it was how I defined it that was the point, no?
 
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.

The converse would seem to be true as well. You are not free from such pre-disposition yourself.
 
It should, that's why I support civil unions.

I disagree.

Tell society.

A majority in our society say that same sex relationships are acceptable. Do you agree?
 
The converse would seem to be true as well. You are not free from such pre-disposition yourself.

I have said as much, but not as clearly. Yes, I am pre-disposed to accept certain facts as well, overcoming that is not often easy to do.
 
That's actually a fair objection. Supposed to implies that there is a rational purpose to something, instead of a purely biological purpose.

In a biological sense, milk exists for the sole purpose of feeding mammalian young. Is that better?

Better, though I still don't like it. Female mammals making milk that could be fed to young was evelutionarily advantageous and so was passed on. "Purpose" implies something that is not actually the case.
 
It should, that's why I support civil unions.

Having marriage for straight couples, and civil unions for LGBT couples is redundant, and is unconstitutional, you know separate but equal.



I disagree.

You are wrong.

Tell society.

So your whole argument against denying people equality under law is because society wants too?

Like I said, that isn't good enough.
 
It should, that's why I support civil unions.

1. Civil unions make gays/bisexuals second class citizens by saying that certain taxpayers are more worthy of marriage than others.
2. What are the consequences to you personally if you support gay marriage, in this life and the afterlife?
 
A majority in our society say that same sex relationships are acceptable. Do you agree?

It depends on who you ask, my generation is overwhelming in favor of LGBT rights, it's only a matter of time. Hopefully sooner than later.
 
Because that's not all I believe. I also believe in science.

I falt-out disagree with this. You are not basing any of your views on science. You would have, at most, an agnostic view regarding whether or not homosexuality is natural if you were takign a scientific view. your views are distinctly unscientific becaus ehtey are all based on faith.


There is nothing illogical about anything I've said.

None of the arguemtns you have presented are valid logic. They are all, universally, illogical.

Absolutely, what I would need is absolute proof to change my view of morality.

But you do not require absolute proof in order to hold and promote your view of morality. This is a hypocritical stance.

I'm not trying to do that though. That is not my goal.

Then stiwhy are you debating?


That doesn't make them illogical, at best it makes them dishonest to the individual.

I didn't say that it was what made them illogical (the plethora of logical fallacies in them is what makes them illogical). The fact that the person is always startign form tehir conclusion and working backwords is what leads them tofall prey to these logical fallacies.

That's not how I feel. My views are based on how I was raised, my religion, and my research.


How you were raised was influenced by your religion and your research is clouded by the beliefs that you hold due to you religion. Otehrwise, you wouldn't be taking such unscientific stances.

Also, I do care if it's normal or natural. That would affect my belief.

I disagree. If you really cared, you would have an open mind about it, instead of making faith-based claims and then defending them without evidence supportign them.

My argument doesn't need your approval

Whether or not your arguments are honest has nothing to do with my approval.

Now, you may feel that I do not have competency in determining honest arguments, and there's nothing wrong with qeustioning my competency in theis regard, but I'm not the only person who notices these things. It's entirely possible that I am correct in my assesment of your argument and that your rejection of my assesment is folly. Idon' twant you to just trust me on it, though. Test it. you want to think scientifically, then put your beliefs to t ehtest.

Step back and legitimately question your assumptions about things. Don't start from your conclusion and work backwards. Write out the logical syllogisms you employ and then see if 2 + 2 really equals 4 in your arguments. Test them for falalcies.

If I'm wrong, all that'll happen is that you come away with an even stronger position.

And if I'm right, all that will happen is that you come away with an even stronger position.

It's win/win for you.
 
1. Civil unions make gays/bisexuals second class citizens by saying that certain taxpayers are more worthy of marriage than others.
2. What are the consequences to you personally if you support gay marriage, in this life and the afterlife?

Why the word 'marriage' matters

Call a spade a spade. It's just a ****ing word. No point in having something that is marriage in all but name only.
 
Better, though I still don't like it. Female mammals making milk that could be fed to young was evelutionarily advantageous and so was passed on. "Purpose" implies something that is not actually the case.

I said "Biological purpose", though. That doesn't imply something that is not the case.
 
Back
Top Bottom